Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 2,435 judgments in total from the Federal Shariat Court.

• Faheem Son Of Jameel Ahmed, By Caste Qaimkhani, Resident Of Hathungo, Taluka Khipro, District Sanghar vs The State2022 F.S.C 43 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Azmat Khan vs The State2022 YLR 1158 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-06-11
  criminal appealhudood ordinanceharaabahremand of casesentencingmandatory proceduredeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment passed by the Model Criminal Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life as Ta'zir for murders committed during a robbery. The core legal question was whether the trial court could lawfully convict the appellant under Section 17(4) for life imprisonment as Ta'zir while simultaneously holding that Hadd requirements were missing, and without recording reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for not awarding the death sentence. The Federal Shariat Court held that Section 17(4) of the Ordinance prescribes exclusively a death sentence as Hadd and does not provide for a lesser sentence of life imprisonment as Ta'zir, and that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court for re-writing of the judgment in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 provides for any sentence other than death as Hadd?
  • Is a trial court obligated under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to state reasons when passing a sentence other than death for an offence punishable with death?
  • What is the legal effect of a judgment that suffers from incurable procedural defects and violates mandatory provisions of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 1946 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-11-05
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRidentification paradedishonest improvementsrecovery proceedingsHudood Ordinanceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II Larkana, which convicted the appellants under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Section 452 of The Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 506(2) of The Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality and reliability of convictions based on delayed First Information Reports, subsequent supplementary statements involving improved allegations, lack of identification parades for unknown accused, and defective recovery proceedings under Section 103 of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that unexplained inordinate delays, material contradictions, dishonest improvements in witness statements, and non-compliance with mandatory recovery provisions render the prosecution case highly doubtful. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants extending them the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused entitles them to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses who have made dishonest and deliberate improvements in their statements during trial?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when unidentified accused are subsequently named by witnesses after a considerable delay?
  • Does non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the recovery of alleged stolen property?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Ullah vs Ghazi Gul and another2022 P Cr. L J 332 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-10-11
  revision petitionremand orderde-novo trialalteration of chargeexcess of jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the legality of an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge directing a de-novo trial and altering the charge after the case had been previously remanded by the appellate court solely for the rewriting of the judgment under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court, upon receiving a case remanded for a specific limited purpose, can exceed its mandate by reopening the trial, altering the charge, and ordering a de-novo trial without valid legal justification. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, flouted the remand order, and committed material illegalities by initiating a de-novo trial and altering charges without any prejudice shown to the accused. The court laid down the principle that a trial court must strictly adhere to the terms of a remand order and cannot expand its scope or conduct a de-novo trial absent proper legal grounds or demonstrable prejudice to the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can order a de-novo trial and alter charges when a case is specifically remanded by an appellate court for the sole purpose of rewriting a judgment?
  • Does an omission or defect in a charge that does not mislead or prejudice the accused vitiate the trial?
  • Can a trial court proceed with a murder trial against an under-trial prisoner in the absence of defense counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Najam-Ud-Din Chishti vs Muhammad Idrees and another2022 MLD 76 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-05-06
  acquittal appealaggrieved personlimitation periodconfessional statement of co-accuseddouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court, Pishin, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the appellant, not being the complainant or an injured party, qualified as an 'aggrieved person' to file an appeal against acquittal, and whether the appeal was time-barred. The Court held that the appellant failed to establish standing as an aggrieved person and that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory limitation period without justification. Furthermore, on merits, the Court affirmed the acquittal, holding that the retracted confessional statements of co-accused, which were the sole evidence against the respondent, could not form the basis for conviction without independent corroboration. The Court reiterated the principle that an accused person earns a double presumption of innocence upon acquittal, and appellate interference is only warranted in cases of gross misreading of evidence or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a confessional statement of a co-accused serve as the sole basis for the conviction of another accused?
  • Does an acquittal judgment grant the accused a double presumption of innocence?
  • Is a person who is not the complainant or an injured party entitled to file an appeal against an acquittal as an 'aggrieved person'?
  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to appeals against acquittal filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs TahirPLJ2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 84 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Muhammad Shabran alias Shada and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 93 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 611 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-07-05
  dacoity with murderHudood lawsidentification paradeballistic reportocular testimonycommon intentioncompensation default sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the Appellants under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 20 of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing them to life imprisonment with compensation. The prosecution case arose from a dacoity committed in a residential flat during which a young man was shot dead upon offering resistance. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the Appellants for dacoity with murder through consistent ocular accounts, identification parades, medical evidence, and weapon recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, affirming the convictions and sentences, while slightly modifying the default sentence regarding compensation to align with statutory limits under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony of natural eyewitnesses inside a dwelling remains unshaken and is corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, the conviction for dacoity with murder under section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is fully sustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial court can convert a conviction under Hudood laws to Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when proof under Hudood is lacking?
  • Does a variance in testimony on immaterial points vitiate the ocular account in a dacoity and murder case?
  • Whether natural eyewitnesses inside a dwelling require independent corroboration when their testimony remains unshaken?
  • What is the maximum period of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 224, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 225, 2021 MLD 860 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-15
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictioncriminal appealspecial lawoverriding effectancillary offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Federal Shariat Court on a preliminary hearing regarding the competence of an appeal filed against a conviction and sentence of death recorded by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question is whether an appeal against a final judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court lies before the Federal Shariat Court or the High Court. The Court held that the appeal is not competent before the Federal Shariat Court because, under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, appeals against Anti-Terrorism Court judgments lie exclusively to the High Court. The Court laid down the principle that the Anti-Terrorism Act is a special law with an overriding effect, and where the principal offence is tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court, ancillary offences committed in the same series of acts are also triable and appealable under the framework of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court ordered the case to be transferred to the High Court of Sindh.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a final judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court lie before the Federal Shariat Court or the High Court?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 have an overriding effect as a special law?
  • Are offences connected in the same series of acts triable and appealable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 225 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-15
  appellate jurisdictionAnti-Terrorism Courtspecial lawoverriding effectcompetency of appealancillary offencestransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the competency of an appeal filed before the Federal Shariat Court against a judgment rendered by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The appellant challenged a conviction and sentence, but the Court was confronted with the issue of whether it possessed the appellate jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the conviction originated from an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court examined the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, specifically Section 25, which mandates that appeals against final judgments of an Anti-Terrorism Court lie exclusively to a High Court. The Court held that the appeal was not competent before the Federal Shariat Court. It reasoned that the Anti-Terrorism Act is a special law with an overriding effect. Furthermore, the Court clarified that even where ancillary offences under the Pakistan Penal Code are involved, they remain triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court alongside scheduled offences, and appellate jurisdiction remains governed by the special statute. Consequently, the Court ordered the transfer of the appeal to the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court at Hyderabad, for adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a final judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court lie before the Federal Shariat Court?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 have an overriding effect over other laws regarding appellate jurisdiction?
  • Are offences under the Pakistan Penal Code tried alongside scheduled offences by an Anti-Terrorism Court subject to the appellate forum prescribed by the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar and another vs The State2022 YLR 198 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-04-30
  robbery with murderidentification paradedelayed FIRconfessional statementbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealhudood
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing them to death for murder during a robbery, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a delayed FIR, the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted without prior description of the accused in the FIR, and the legal weight of an exculpatory and delayed confessional statement. The Federal Shariat Court held that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions between eyewitnesses, lack of physical descriptions in the initial report rendering the identification parade legally ineffective, and an uncorroborated, exculpatory confessional statement created insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and death sentences, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, and acquitted them.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade when the accused were complete strangers and no physical description was provided in the initial FIR?
  • Can an exculpatory and delayed confessional statement be used to sustain the conviction of an accused or a co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does an investigation conducted prior to the formal lodging of an FIR carry legal efficacy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State2021 YLR 2352 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-10
  de novo trialdefective chargeremand of casepoints for determinationexamination of accusedFederal Shariat Courtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 363, 302, and 10(2) read with section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerns the legality of the trial when the foundational charge, points for determination, and examination of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suffer from grave legal defects, misstatements of dates, and erroneous application of statutory provisions. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements—including framing a correct charge and properly formulating points for determination—vitiates the trial and judgment. The court laid down the principle that a defective charge and flawed trial procedure that prejudice the accused are incurable, necessitating a remand of the matter for a de novo trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial is vitiated when the foundational charge contains incorrect dates and misstates material particulars of the offence?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to properly frame points for determination under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the judgment unsustainable?
  • Can an appellate court remand a criminal case for a de novo trial when procedural defects and incurable flaws are found in the trial proceedings?
  • Whether the omission of applicable statutory provisions and citation of inapplicable sections in the charge and section 342 statement prejudice the accused warranting a retrial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1273 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State2021 YLR 1979 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-07
  criminal revisionnarcotics recoverydefective chargedelay in chemical examinationsafe custody of samplesbenefit of doubtprohibition order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was directed against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge, Dadu, which modified the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 to two years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that 230 kg of hemp was recovered from a vehicle driven by the petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, who implicated co-accused Syed Saifullah Shah. The core legal questions involved the legality of the joint charge, the validity of cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the effect of a 57-day delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner without proving safe custody. The Federal Shariat Court held that the joint charge was defective, the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence, and the unexplained delay in sample transmission violated Rule 6 of the Sindh Prohibition Rules 1979, creating a fatal doubt in the prosecution case. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted and sentenced simultaneously under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
  • What are the legal consequences of an unexplained delay in sending contraband samples to the chemical examiner?
  • Does a joint charge framed against co-accused without establishing joint possession or common intention vitiate the trial?
  • What is the duty of a Magistrate while taking cognizance and dealing with a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1197, 2022 YLR 754 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-04-30
  dying declarationmurderlast seen evidencecriminal appeallife imprisonmentforensic evidenceadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the dying declaration of the victim, corroborated by last-seen evidence from two witnesses and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon. The core legal question was whether the dying declaration, recorded in the presence of witnesses, constituted sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, and whether the trial court’s sentencing required clarification. The Federal Shariat Court held that the dying declaration was a substantive, admissible piece of evidence under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as it was consistent, free from enmity, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. The Court affirmed that no special mode is required for recording a dying declaration. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction while clarifying that the life imprisonment sentence is properly categorized under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a specific legal mode required for recording a dying declaration?
  • Can a dying declaration be acted upon without corroboration if the court is satisfied with its genuineness?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to specify the clause of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, in a conviction for life imprisonment invalidate the sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs The State2021 M LD 1725 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-02
  Prohibition Ordernarcotics recoverystatement of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C.safe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtright of cross-examinationdefective charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing narcotics ("Bhang"). The core legal questions involved the legality of the conviction based solely on an admission in a Section 342 statement, procedural lapses in framing charges, lack of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, and failure to prove safe custody and transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting multiple legal and procedural flaws including violations of mandatory procedures, failure to establish exclusive possession, and missing links in the safe custody of contraband. The appeal was accepted, and the conviction and sentence were set aside, laying down that the prosecution must strictly prove safe transmission of samples, and that an accused's statement under Section 342 cannot be used selectively to record a conviction when the prosecution case has otherwise failed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted solely on an inculpatory statement made under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when the prosecution fails to prove its case?
  • Does a simultaneous conviction and sentence under both Article 3 and Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 stand valid under the law?
  • What are the legal consequences of the prosecution's failure to establish safe custody and secure transmission of contraband samples to the Chemical Examiner?
  • Is the right of cross-examination considered a mandatory requirement, and what is the legal effect of failing to cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and another vs The State2022 YLR 967 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-09-06
  criminal appealmurder trialfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscontradictory statementsbelated FIRbenefit of doubthonorary acquittaljudicial misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Badin, whereby the appellants were convicted for murder and house trespass. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on belated statements and material contradictions. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to dishonest investigation, severe contradictions in eye-witness accounts, and deliberate improvements made weeks after the incident. Applying the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the court discarded the tainted testimonies and noted that the initial report stated the culprits were un-identified. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment, honorably acquitting the appellants and co-accused. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions, belated statements without plausible explanation, and dishonest improvements by eye-witnesses render their testimony untrustworthy, and the falsus in uno rule forms an integral part of criminal jurisprudence requiring the rejection of testimony found to contain deliberate falsehoods.

  Questions settled

  • Whether belated statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. after a considerable unexplained delay can form the basis of a conviction?
  • Does the rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' apply to discard the entire testimony of a witness found to have resorted to deliberate falsehood?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the initial report describes the culprits as un-identified and subsequent improvements introduce named accused?
  • What is the legal effect of non-production of the investigating officer and severe flaws in the police investigation on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseema Bibi vs Murad and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 264 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-10-29
  QazfZinaAcquittal appealTazkiyah al-ShuhoodMisreading of evidenceCriminal procedureJudgment contents
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the acquittal of the respondent in a criminal complaint filed under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, alleging that the respondent falsely accused her of Zina. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court misread the evidence, failed to properly evaluate the necessity of Tazkiyah al-Shuhood, and neglected the mandatory procedural requirements for drafting a judgment. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court’s judgment was legally defective, citing significant misreading of evidence, including medical reports and witness statements, and an erroneous approach regarding the delay in filing the complaint, which is permissible in Qazf cases given the sensitivity of the offense. Furthermore, the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by not formulating specific points for determination. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The judgment reaffirms that trial courts must provide cogent reasons for their findings and strictly adhere to procedural mandates to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a delay in filing a complaint for Qazf fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does a judgment that fails to formulate points for determination as required by Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, remain sustainable?
  • Can an offer of a special oath be used to determine liability in a criminal case of Qazf?
  • What is the standard for evaluating Tazkiyah al-Shuhood in Hadd cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nabeela vs The State and another2022 YLR 861 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-05-05
  Qazffalse accusation of zinadelay in lodging complaintremand for de novo trialHaddFederal Shariat Courtchastity and muhsanapology and pardon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondent No.2 by the trial court in a complaint case registered under Section 5 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 for falsely accusing the appellant of fornication (zina). The core legal questions involved the legality of treating delay in filing a Qazf complaint as fatal to the case, the procedural requirements under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the nature of Qazf as an offence involving individual rights where pardon or apology may be considered. The Federal Shariat Court held that, unlike other criminal offences, delay in filing a complaint for Qazf is natural and permissible under Islamic law due to the deep interlinkage of family honour and reputation. The court set aside the acquittal, ruled that the trial court failed to frame points for determination under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and remanded the matter for a de novo trial. The key principle laid down is that delay in reporting Qazf is not fatal, and Qazf complaints must be adjudicated strictly in accordance with special procedures under the Qazf Ordinance and related protective laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a criminal complaint for the offence of Qazf is fatal to the case?
  • What are the mandatory procedural requirements for taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in Qazf cases?
  • Can an unconditional apology tendered by an accused in a Qazf case result in acquittal based on the victim's pardon?
  • What options are available to a trial court under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 after recording evidence in a complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux alias Mouli vs The State2021 YLR 1911 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-02-15
  criminal appealmurderquantum of sentenceremand of casesentencing reasonsprocedural irregularityhudood
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(c) and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to 25 years and 7 years rigorous imprisonment respectively for the murder and burning of a seven-year-old girl. The core legal questions involved the legality and sustainability of the trial court judgment due to grave procedural and substantive irregularities, including failure to answer or frame a point for determination regarding a charge under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, and failure to record reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for awarding a lesser sentence instead of the normal penalty of death. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's judgment suffered from fatal incurable irregularities and mechanical application of sentencing without fulfilling mandatory statutory requirements. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh judgment after hearing the parties. The key principle laid down is that when a court awards a lesser sentence than death for an offence punishable with death, it must mandatorily record reasons justifying the deviation pursuant to Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to record reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for awarding a lesser sentence than death vitiate the judgment?
  • Is a trial court mandated to answer and frame points for determination regarding every charge framed against an accused, including under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • What is the appellate court's recourse when a trial court delivers a defective judgment containing fatal incurable procedural and substantive irregularities?
  Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux alias Mouli vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 883 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mian Bux and others vs State etc2021 YLR 1130, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 210 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-16
  criminal appealmurderrobberydacoityfirearm injuriesappreciation of evidencefalse implicationsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from jail criminal appeals directed against a common judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for offences including murder, robbery, and causing firearm injuries during a dacoity and subsequent encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellants for the charges of murder, robbery, and related offences, or if the defence's plea of a false implication and a fake police encounter held merit. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent, coherent, and confidence-inspiring, and the medical and circumstantial evidence corroborated the sequence of events, establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond doubt. The court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact supported by trustworthy and reliable ocular and medical evidence cannot be disturbed, and that inconsistent defence pleas lacking evidentiary support do not create a dent in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused for murder and robbery beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact based on consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular testimony be interfered with in appellate jurisdiction?
  • Whether contradictory and shifting defence pleas regarding a fake encounter are sufficient to discredit reliable prosecution evidence?
  • Are appellants entitled to a reduction of sentence when they have committed cold-blooded murder during the course of a robbery?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Najaat Welfare Foundation through General Secretary vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 4 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1244, 2021 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-02-03
  Shariat petitionMuslim Personal LawFederal Shariat Court jurisdictionrepugnancy to injunctions of IslamPrinciples of Muhammadan Lawstatutory lawjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This Shariat Petition sought a declaration that specific paragraphs of "Principles of Muhammadan Law" by D.F. Mulla are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The petitioner argued that the book, through constant and uniform practice, attained the force of law, thereby falling under the definition of "law" in Article 203B(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, holding that Mulla’s work is a reference book, not statutory law, and thus falls outside the Court's jurisdiction to examine for repugnancy. The Court emphasized that colonial-era legal texts, despite their historical usage by courts, do not constitute enacted legislation. Furthermore, the Court noted that Muslim Personal Law is explicitly excluded from the definition of "law" under Article 203B of the Constitution. The judgment clarifies that while reference books may guide legal interpretation, they cannot be equated with the primary sources of Islamic law—the Holy Quran and Sunnah—nor can they be subjected to judicial review as if they were statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the book 'Principles of Muhammadan Law' by D.F. Mulla constitute 'law' as defined under Article 203B of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the jurisdiction to declare the contents of a non-statutory reference book repugnant to the injunctions of Islam?
  • Is Muslim Personal Law included within the definition of 'law' subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203B of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The State and 2 others2022 YLR 522 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-25
  dying declarationconfessional statementcircumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtmurderrobberyweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased following an attempted robbery. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and admissibility of a statement treated as a dying declaration under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the voluntariness and truthfulness of a retracted judicial confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the reliability of circumstantial evidence and weapon recoveries under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution relied on a weak, unverified statement failing to meet the requirements of a dying declaration, that the confessional statement suffered from mandatory procedural illegalities and material contradictions, and that weapon recoveries and forensic reports were highly doubtful. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, establishing that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the accused's guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injured person's statement recorded in an FIR qualify as a dying declaration when the declarant survives for 39 days without medical certification of fitness?
  • Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon when it contradicts the material particulars of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence?
  • Is a weapon recovery admissible under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when independent local witnesses are not associated despite prior police information?
  • What constitutes the necessary benchmark for establishing guilt solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence in a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Kathoor and another vs The State2021 MLD 1924 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-09-30
  contraband liquorprohibition ordersearch and seizurebenefit of doubtnon-association of independent witnesseschemical examiner reportcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing, manufacturing, and selling contraband liquor. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt despite serious procedural lapses, non-association of independent witnesses from the locality under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, failure to send samples to the Chemical Examiner, and lack of evidence regarding manufacturing or selling. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants. The court held that non-compliance with mandatory search provisions, failure to associate independent inhabitants during a house search despite prior information, and unverified chemical reports create insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that a single reasonable doubt arising from material flaws and contradictions in police testimony entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to associate independent inhabitants of the locality during the search of a dwelling house vitiates the recovery proceedings?
  • Does the absence of chemical analysis and proper sealing of alleged contraband liquor render a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 unsustainable?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction for manufacturing and selling liquor stand when no evidence or machinery regarding manufacturing is collected by the raiding party?
  Read full judgment →
• Irum Malik vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of Pakistan, IslamabadPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 592, 2021 PLD Federal Shariat Court 28 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali and another vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 286 · Federal Shariat Court
  criminal appealretracted confessionbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRocular evidencemedical evidencemurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements, and the reliability of retracted judicial confessions. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the lack of credible corroboration. The Court emphasized that an unexplained delay in FIR registration, especially when police were already in motion, creates room for fabrication and deliberation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that retracted confessions, which were recorded after significant delay and failed to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements or demonstrate voluntariness, are unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for the standard of proof required in criminal cases, necessitating acquittal when the prosecution's narrative is fundamentally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR and recording witness statements render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on retracted confessions that lack voluntariness and fail to comply with procedural requirements?
  • What is the legal effect of a material conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can suspicion, however grave, serve as a substitute for the standard of proof required in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and 2 others vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (FSC) 430 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-12
  Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Orderrecovery of contrabandcontradictory testimonieschemical examiner reportdelay in FIRnon-compliance of Section 103 Cr.P.C.criminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The prosecution case stemmed from a police raid on a dumper truck wherein thousands of bottles of English wine were allegedly recovered. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given numerous contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and sending samples for chemical examination, non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding public witnesses, and failure to produce case property before the court. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants. The court laid down the principle that unexplainable and glaring contradictions among prosecution witnesses, unexplained delays in the chemical examination of recovered contraband, and non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure provisions vitiate the trial and render the prosecution case untrustworthy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the quantity of recovered contraband are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does an unexplained and inordinate delay in sending samples for chemical examination vitiate the evidentiary value of the chemical report?
  • Is the non-association of private persons as recovery witnesses a fatal flaw resulting in the non-compliance of mandatory procedural safeguards?
  • Can a conviction for possession of intoxicants be sustained when the case property or alleged samples are not properly produced and identified before the court during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asgar Ali and 2 others vs The State2021 MLD 888 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-12-12
  prohibitionhaddrecovery of liquorcontradictory evidencechemical examiner reportdelay in FIRcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The prosecution case stemmed from a police stop of a dumper carrying alleged liquor bottles, leading to the appellants' conviction and sentencing. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of contradictory testimonies by police witnesses, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and sending samples for chemical examination, and non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding public witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to glaring contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the quantity of recovered items, unexplained delays, lack of safe custody and production of case property, and failure to associate private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant and unexplained contradiction among prosecution witnesses regarding the quantity of recovered contraband vitiate the conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 when mandatory provisions regarding the association of private witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are ignored?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner in a criminal case?
  • Can a conviction be upheld when the case property or alleged samples are not produced and identified before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad etc vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1220, 2022 YLR 710 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-04-30
  double murderdeath sentence confirmationrecovery of weaponsdisclosure statementQanun-e-Shahadat Ordercriminal appealidentification paradered-handed arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants for the double murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of prosecution evidence, the reliability of the identification parade, and the admissibility of weapon recoveries based on the appellants' disclosure statements. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the death sentences, holding that the prosecution's case was consistent, natural, and corroborated by forensic reports. The Court found that the appellants were arrested red-handed following an exchange of fire with Levies personnel, and the recoveries of weapons were legally admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as they were discovered in consequence of information provided by the accused while in custody. The Court affirmed that when the chain of events is flawless and supported by independent evidence, the conviction is sound, and the trial court's judgment warrants no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Is a recovery made in consequence of information provided by an accused in police custody admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the arrest of an accused red-handed following an exchange of fire with law enforcement constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a trial court's judgment be maintained if the prosecution evidence is consistent and corroborated by forensic reports despite arguments regarding the delay in identification parades?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ghulam vs The State2021 YLR 2014 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-16
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtballistic expert reportmedical evidenceuncross-examined witnessesattempt to commit qatl-e-amdrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Umerkot, convicting the appellants under Section 392 and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of prosecution evidence where material witnesses remained uncross-examined, and the legal consequences of withholding medical evidence and ballistic expert reports in a criminal trial involving firearm use. The Federal Shariat Court held that the failure of the prosecution to send the recovered weapon and empty shells to a ballistic expert, the omission to refer the injured accused for medical examination, and the lack of cross-examination of key witnesses create profound doubts in the prosecution's case. The Court laid down that medical and ballistic evidence serve as crucial corroborative tools, and withholding them attracts adverse presumptions under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, their convictions were set aside, and they were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal consequences under criminal jurisprudence when the prosecution fails to send a recovered firearm and empty cartridge shells to a ballistic expert for examination and report?
  • Whether the failure to refer an injured accused for medical examination and treatment creates a significant doubt in the veracity of the prosecution's version of events?
  • Does the absence of cross-examination of key prosecution witnesses due to the absence of counsel vitiate the evidentiary value of their testimony?
  • What evidentiary presumption arises under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when material evidence such as medical reports and ballistic expert opinions are withheld by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed alias Muhammad Iqbal vs The State2021 YLR 2301 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-07-05
  criminal appealmurderrobberyocular testimonyballistic expertappraisal of evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, whereby the appellant, Abdul Majeed alias Muhammad Iqbal, was convicted under Section 394 and Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that the appellant, along with unknown accomplices, robbed a motorcycle and, upon resistance, fired at the complainant party, causing the death of Amjad Ali. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, minor discrepancies in statements, the effect of sending weapon and empties together to the ballistic expert, and compliance with procedural requirements during examination. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that prompt registration of the FIR, natural presence of eyewitnesses, corroboration by medical evidence, and uncontroverted recovery of the robbed motorcycle established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, while minor discrepancies and the discarded ballistic report did not undermine the otherwise trustworthy prosecution case. The key principles laid down include that minor discrepancies arising from delayed cross-examination do not vitiate eyewitness accounts, and the rejection of a corroborative piece of evidence like a ballistic report does not automatically discredit direct ocular testimony if it is otherwise reliable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies and time gaps in cross-examination are sufficient to discard otherwise trustworthy eyewitness testimony?
  • Does the rejection of a ballistic report due to simultaneous dispatch of weapon and empties invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Whether mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the complainant is a ground to discard their testimony in the absence of enmity?
  • What is the effect of an irregularity in failing to confront an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with a piece of evidence that is ultimately discarded by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs Ajeeb and others2020 YLR 1733 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-03-01
  criminal appealacquittaldelay in FIRidentification paradebenefit of doubtdacoityre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were acquitted of charges relating to a dacoity and wrongful confinement. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically addressing the evidentiary value of a delayed First Information Report, lack of corroboration, flaws in the identification parade, and the parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence, as the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the prosecution's version, the identification parade suffered from incurable legal and factual infirmities, and no incriminating corroborative evidence linked the respondents to the crime. The court reiterated the strict parameters for setting aside an acquittal, emphasizing that appellate courts must accord due weight to the trial court's findings unless manifest perversity or illegality is shown. Finding no such infirmity, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the parameters for an appellate court to consider when re-appraising evidence to interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does an unexplained and considerable delay in lodging the First Information Report create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an identification parade be relied upon when the accused persons' physical descriptions are omitted from the initial crime report?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade when the supervising magistrate is not produced and the witnesses have prior opportunity to see the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Tulsi vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C) 163, 2020 MLD 89 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-22
  criminal appealprohibition of liquorsection 342 examinationbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportmaterial contradictionsHadd Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession and manufacture of liquor. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically addressing material contradictions in prosecution witness testimony, the failure to associate independent witnesses from the vicinity, and the legal effect of omitting to put the Chemical Examiner’s report to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, noting that material contradictions between witnesses, the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the omission to confront the accused with the Chemical Examiner's report during his Section 342 examination rendered the evidence unreliable. The Court reaffirmed the principle that any evidence not put to an accused during their Section 342 examination cannot be used against them, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Chemical Examiner's report be used against an accused if it was not put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a material contradiction between prosecution witnesses regarding the nature of sample containers and the number of samples sent for analysis create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses from the vicinity fatal to the prosecution's case in a recovery matter?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Muhammad2020 YLR 2639 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-11-27
  appeal against acquittalprohibition orderrecovery of liquorsafe custody of samplesdelay in chemical examinationdouble presumption of innocencepolice witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondents for an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal, based on non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, delayed safe custody and transmission of samples, and reliance solely on uncorroborated police testimony, warranted interference by the appellate court. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is narrow, and since the trial court's view was reasonable, sound, and based on proper appreciation of evidence, the double presumption of innocence enjoyed by the acquitted accused remained intact. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delays in sending samples to the chemical examiner, unsafe custody of case property, non-association of independent local witnesses during recovery from a populated place, and exclusive reliance on police officials without corroboration are fatal to the prosecution's case, and an order of acquittal will not be interfered with unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an unexplained delay of seven days in sending recovery samples to the laboratory vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Is non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to a recovery made from a populated place?
  • What is the evidentiary value of police officials' testimonies in narcotics recovery cases when independent local witnesses are not associated?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Ali Khan vs The State and 4 others2020 YLR 696 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-15
  criminal appeal against acquittalabductionZinaappellate jurisdictionprosecutrix testimonyreasonable doubtmisreading of evidenceSection 164 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving allegations of abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal, based on the prosecutrix's inconsistent statements and the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, was perverse or based on misreading of evidence. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the appellate jurisdiction to disturb an acquittal is limited and only exercisable where gross injustice or perversity exists. The Court found the trial court’s judgment to be well-reasoned and balanced, noting that the prosecutrix provided contradictory versions of events across different judicial proceedings, rendering her testimony unreliable. The key principle laid down is that criminal cases must be decided on their peculiar facts, and where two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be preferred. Furthermore, the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not met in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as substantive evidence if the accused was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness?
  • Does the principle of 'two views' require the court to prefer the view favoring the accused in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan vs Ibrahim and another2020 YLR 1033 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-12-19
  acquittalno probability of convictionnarcoticspossessionhearsay evidenceextraordinary circumstancesremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the order of the Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, which acquitted the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a case registered under Articles 3, 4, and 26 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused at an intermediate stage when the prosecution evidence showed no probability of conviction and the case was solely based on hearsay information from an undisclosed informer without any nexus to the recovered narcotics. The Federal Shariat Court held that where the evidence collected during investigation, including witness statements under Section 161 and the recovery memo, fails to establish actual or constructive possession or any link between the accused and the contraband, proceeding with the trial would be an exercise in futility. The court laid down that while a full-fledged trial is the norm, extraordinary circumstances such as a complete lack of incriminating evidence justifying an acquittal under Section 265-K will be upheld, and a delayed case will not be remanded where the prosecution cannot improve its case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence shows no probability of conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under Article 4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 without proof of actual or constructive possession of the recovered narcotics?
  • Should an appellate court remand a criminal case for retrial after a lapse of many years when the available evidence collected during investigation is inherently weak and based on hearsay?
  • Can statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 form the sole basis for establishing a nexus between the accused and the alleged crime?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Sajjad Ahmad and 2 others2020 MLD 1908, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 568 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-12-04
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtpolice encounterpresumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencecriminal trialSection 265-K CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, filed by the State, challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balakot, regarding charges stemming from an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal order was based on a proper appreciation of evidence or if it suffered from legal infirmity warranting interference. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, including the failure to examine the DPO who led the operation and contradictions regarding the police encounter. The Court affirmed the acquittal, emphasizing that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely limited. It reiterated the principle that after acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled, and an appellate court should not interfere merely because it might reach a different conclusion upon re-appraisal. The Court concluded that the trial court’s reasoning was sound, not arbitrary, and that the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the presumption of innocence change after a trial court has recorded an acquittal?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal merely because it might reach a different conclusion upon re-appraisal of evidence?
  • Is the benefit of doubt granted to an accused a matter of grace or a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Sholo @ Rasool Bux vs State2021 MLD 1577, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 580 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-30
  jail appealexamination of accusedmaterial irregularitylesser punishmentremandcommon objectdacoityhadood ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court committed incurable irregularities by failing to put material evidence, including medical evidence, motive, and absconsion, to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the trial court properly recorded reasons for awarding a lesser punishment instead of the normal penalty of death. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court committed material and incurable irregularities by omitting to put vital incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and by failing to provide adequate reasons for opting for a lesser sentence as mandated by Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and remanded the case back to the trial court for re-examination of the accused in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to put material evidence emerging from cross-examination or medical reports to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Is a trial court mandated to state reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when imposing a lesser sentence instead of the normal penalty of death?
  • Must incriminating circumstances regarding the absconsion of an accused be specifically put to him during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the appropriate legal recourse when a trial court commits material irregularities in examining the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ullah vs State2021 YLR 169, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1635 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-09-21
  Haraabahde-novo trialwrongful charge conversionpoints for determinationCriminal Procedure CodeHudood Ordinancejail criminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a jail criminal appeal directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the charge of Haraabah was properly framed and whether the trial court's judgment met mandatory legal requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the ingredients constituting Haraabah were entirely absent from the FIR and evidence, as the case involved murder and attempt to murder rather than a taking of property by force, and that the trial court committed grave illegalities by failing to formulate points for determination under Section 367 Cr.P.C. and omitting to specify the correct penal provisions. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a de-novo trial. The court laid down the principle that the misuse of a specific legal charge without supporting evidence and the failure to comply with mandatory judgment-writing provisions vitiates the trial and amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of Haraabah under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does failure to specify points for determination and reasons under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 render a judgment unsustainable?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for de-novo trial when charges are wrongly converted by the trial court without supporting evidence?
  • Is the omission to specify the exact section of law under which an accused is convicted curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmed vs Adil and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1149, 2022 YLR 138 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-31
  disposal of case propertysuperdariacquittalownership disputecriminal procedurerevision petitionrestoration of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which directed the restoration of recovered case property (gold ornaments and other valuables) to the accused, Adil, following his acquittal in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a criminal court, upon acquitting an accused, is obligated to return seized property to the person from whose possession it was recovered, or whether it should maintain the status quo regarding possession when ownership is disputed. The Federal Shariat Court held that while Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the court discretion in disposing of property, this discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. The Court emphasized that criminal courts are not the proper forum to adjudicate complex questions of title. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the property should remain with the complainant (who held it on Superdari) pending a final determination of ownership by a competent civil court. The principle established is that acquittal does not automatically entitle an accused to the return of seized property if ownership is contested.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of an accused person automatically entitle them to the return of property seized from their possession?
  • Is a criminal court competent to adjudicate questions of title regarding disputed property during proceedings under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should property seized during a criminal investigation be returned to the accused upon their acquittal if ownership is contested by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjadullah and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1192, 2020 YLR 1288 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-28
  defective chargede novo trialcontents of judgmentpoints for determinationcommon intentionconfessional statementremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition challenge the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and robbery. During the hearing, counsel for both the appellants and the state conceded that the trial suffered from fatal illegalities, specifically regarding a defective charge sheet that failed to specify individual roles or correctly name the deceased, and a judgment that violated mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by failing to frame points for determination and omitting reasons for awarding lesser sentences or omitting the death sentence. The core legal question addressed is whether a trial and judgment suffering from fundamental statutory non-compliance and defective charges can be sustained. The Federal Shariat Court held that the omissions and illegalities in framing the charge and writing the judgment were incurable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rendering the trial court judgment a nullity. The court laid down the principle that strict compliance with framing precise charges and incorporating mandatory judgment contents under sections 223 and 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential, and failure to do so warrants setting aside the judgment and remanding the case for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a trial court to formulate points for determination in a judgment makes the judgment a nullity?
  • Does a defect in framing a charge regarding the specific roles of accused persons cause prejudice that is incurable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court mandated to state reasons in its judgment when passing a sentence other than death for an offence punishable with death?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for a de novo trial when both parties concede to fundamental illegalities in the trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 669, 2020 P Cr. L J 799 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-11-14
  Zina-bil-jabrHostile witnessFalsus in uno falsus in omnibusCriminal appealMedical evidenceCorroborationAcquittalSection 161 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for Zina-bil-jabr and house trespass. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the complainant and other key witnesses turned hostile and the victim's testimony lacked independent corroboration. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting significant contradictions between the FIR and the victim's testimony, the absence of recovered stolen property, and the lack of reliable medical evidence. The Court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that medical evidence is merely confirmatory, not corroborative. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the applicability of the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus,' rejecting the 'sifting of the grain from the chaff' doctrine. It also clarified that the prosecution cannot confront a witness with their previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for contradiction purposes if the witness is not legally hostile. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution confront a witness with their previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of contradiction after declaring them hostile?
  • Is the principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable to criminal proceedings in Pakistan?
  • Does medical evidence serve as a corroborative piece of evidence in cases of Zina-bil-jabr?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a victim when the complainant and other witnesses have been declared hostile?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs Muhammad Ashraf and 3 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 192 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-30
  QazfZinaHudood lawscriminal appealacquittalfalse imputationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalia, acquitting the respondents of the charge of Qazf under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. The complainant alleged that the respondents falsely implicated him and his wife in a previous Zina case, constituting the offence of Qazf. The Federal Shariat Court re-appraised the evidence and examined the statutory definitions of Qazf and Zina under the relevant ordinances. The court held that mere consultation, suspicion, or statements regarding persons 'going for the purpose of Zina' do not amount to a direct and specific imputation of Zina as strictly required by law. Emphasizing that deterrent punishments necessitate stricter proof, the court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to substantiate the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld, though the court clarified that previous judgments inter partes remain binding despite being rendered without notice to certain respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of going for the purpose of Zina constitute a direct imputation of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is consultation prior to the registration of a criminal case sufficient to establish the offence of Qazf?
  • What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction for Qazf in view of the deterrent punishments provided under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Shakeela Bibi and 3 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1132, 2020 YLR 2087, 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 397 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-02-13
  qazfappeal against acquittaldouble jeopardygood faith exceptionsecond marriagezina imputation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby a private complaint under sections 6 and 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 was dismissed and the respondents were acquitted. The core legal question was whether the respondents' civil suit and legal pursuits challenging the validity of the petitioner's second marriage and alleging illicit relations constituted the offence of Qazf, and whether interference was warranted in a judgment of acquittal. The Federal Shariat Court held that the civil suit and legal recourses initiated by the first wife in good faith regarding an unregistered second marriage did not amount to Qazf, lacking the requisite intention to harm reputation. Furthermore, the court held that the subsequent complaint was barred under the principle of double jeopardy, and an acquittal judgment cannot be interfered with unless it suffers from gross perversity, misreading of evidence, or is based on conjectures. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does filing a civil suit challenging the validity of a second Nikah amount to the offence of Qazf under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the principle of double jeopardy bars a subsequent private complaint for Qazf based on identical allegations that have attained finality through earlier proceedings?
  • What are the parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment passed by a competent trial court?
  • Does referring an accusation of zina in good faith to an authorized person or court fall under the exceptions to Qazf?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Shakeela Bibi and 3 anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1132 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-02-13
  Qazfacquittaldouble jeopardyspecial leave to appealzina imputationcivil suitgood faith exception
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge Islamabad in a private complaint under Section 6 and 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, based on allegations that the respondents had falsely accused the petitioner of zina in a civil suit and other legal proceedings. The core legal questions involved whether filing a civil suit or legal recourse challenging a marriage constitutes the offence of Qazf, whether a second complaint on identical charges is barred by the principle of double jeopardy, and the scope of interference in a judgment of acquittal. The Federal Shariat Court held that the respondents' legal actions taken in bona fide pursuit of grievances regarding a second marriage did not constitute Qazf, that the subsequent complaint was barred by double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan read with Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that no grounds existed to interfere with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal. The court laid down the principles governing the exception of bona fide accusations to authorized persons under the Qazf Ordinance, the strict protections against double jeopardy, and the high threshold required to set aside an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does filing a civil suit challenging a marriage Nikahnama constitute the offence of Qazf under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether a second private complaint on identical charges is barred by the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What are the parameters and legal thresholds for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs Muhammad Ramzan and 5 others2020 YLR 391 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-09-25
  acquittal appealZinaabductionbenefit of doubtpresumption of innocencedelayed FIRconsensual marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a case involving alleged abduction and Zina. The complainant alleged his daughter was abducted by the respondents, while the defense contended the marriage was consensual. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on misreading of evidence, justifying appellate interference. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted significant contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence, including an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR and the abductee’s consistent statements supporting the consensual nature of her marriage. The court reaffirmed the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is artificial, shocking, or based on a blatant misreading of evidence. It emphasized that an acquittal doubles the presumption of innocence, and where two reasonable conclusions are possible, the trial court's finding must prevail. The court concluded that the trial judge correctly appreciated the evidence and extended the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in an abduction case warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • What is the threshold for an appellate court to interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an alleged abductee sufficient to rebut allegations of abduction and Zina?
  • Does the presumption of innocence double after an acquittal by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen vs Muhammad Ishfaq and 4 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 1121, 2022 YLR 459 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-30
  QazfZina imputationexamination-in-chiefinadmissible evidencede novo trialpoints for determinationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the dismissal of a complaint filed under Sections 7 and 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, wherein the appellant alleged that false imputations of Zina and derogatory statements had been made against her through affidavits. Special leave to appeal was granted by the Federal Shariat Court. Upon examining the record, the Court identified severe and incurable legal irregularities committed by the trial court, including relying on preliminary inquiry statements without recording a proper examination-in-chief on oath during the trial, mismanaging witness depositions, and failing to formulate points for determination as mandated by Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that evidence recorded in disregard of mandatory provisions of law, particularly the rules governing the examination of witnesses under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is inadmissible and cannot form the basis of a valid judgment. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can statements recorded during a preliminary inquiry be utilized as substantive evidence during a trial without conducting a formal examination-in-chief on oath?
  • Whether failure to formulate points for determination under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 renders a judgment invalid in the eyes of the law?
  • What are the recognized exceptions under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 where statements made by a witness without cross-examination are admissible?
  • Does a legal defect or procedural irregularity committed by a trial court prejudice the rights of the litigants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mano vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 678, 2022 YLR 396 · Federal Shariat Court · 2020-01-09
  criminal revisionprohibition ordersafe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtenhancement of sentenceappellate powersrecovery witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts convicting the petitioner under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for possessing contraband liquor. The core legal questions involved the legality of the appellate court enhancing the sentence without issuing notice under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the prosecution proved its case regarding safe custody and transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner, as well as compliance with search and seizure procedures. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the petition, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to unexplained delays in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner, non-compliance with safe custody rules, failure to associate independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and procedural defects in sample collection. The key principles laid down include that an appellate court cannot enhance a sentence under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that the prosecution must strictly prove the safe custody and secure transmission of samples, and that any single doubt created in the prosecution case entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the power to enhance a sentence under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 confer powers of sentence enhancement upon an appellate court?
  • Is the prosecution bound to prove safe custody and secure transmission of recovered contraband samples to the Chemical Examiner?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to associate respectable inhabitants of the locality during a house search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamil Jan vs Shahzad alias Mano and 2 others2020 YLR 1926 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-09
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtrobberyappellate interferencedelayed FIRHudood lawscriminal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, regarding charges under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was legally sustainable given the prosecution's evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the acquittal was well-founded and maintained the judgment, dismissing the appeal. The Court reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant delays in lodging the FIR, contradictory explanations regarding the delay, and the absence of recovered incriminating evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that appellate courts should not interfere with acquittal judgments that are based on reasonable and plausible grounds, as suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can suspicion or high probability serve as a substitute for proof in criminal cases?
  • What is the legal effect of an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumo and 4 others vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 216 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-22
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular testimonydelayed FIRmurderhudood ordinanceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, attempted murder, and related offenses. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony, the effect of unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal Shariat Court held that the testimony of the uninjured eye-witnesses was unnatural and improbable, that material contradictions and unexplained delays undermined the prosecution case, and that the medical and motive evidence could not independently establish the appellants' guilt. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies aside, a single reasonable doubt arising from unnatural human conduct of witnesses, delayed statements, and lack of corroborative evidence entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in recording statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 diminish the evidentiary value of their testimony?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as a substitute for substantive corroborative evidence to connect an accused with the crime?
  • Whether the unnatural conduct of uninjured eye-witnesses remaining unharmed during an attack makes their presence at the crime scene doubtful?
  • Is proof of motive alone sufficient to sustain a conviction when the primary ocular and corroborative evidence fails?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Nawab vs Sohail Khan and another2020 MLD 266 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-09-12
  HarabahCriminal Procedure CodeJudgment writingMandatory provisionsRemandOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979Conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for Harabah (robbery) and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s judgment was legally sustainable, given its failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, the trial court failed to frame points for determination, provide reasons for the decision, or specify the exact offence and statutory provision under which the appellant was convicted and sentenced. The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned judgment was defective and unsustainable in law due to these procedural lapses. The court emphasized that the requirements of Section 367, Cr.P.C. are mandatory, not merely formal, and are essential for the administration of justice. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to rewrite the judgment in strict accordance with the law, ensuring all statutory requirements are met, including specifying the legal basis for the conviction and the reasons for the sentence imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal judgment that fails to specify the offence and the statutory provision under which the accused is convicted sustainable in law?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a criminal judgment under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must a trial court provide reasons for awarding a lesser sentence of life imprisonment in its judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Azizullah alias Hero vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 129 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-12
  criminal appealconfessional statementabscondenceacquittalretracted confessioncorroborative evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his trial after being an absconder, whereas co-accused on the same set of evidence had already been acquitted. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of an alleged confessional statement where the judicial magistrate was not produced as a witness, and whether conviction can be sustained on the basis of abscondence alone when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that a confessional statement retracted by the accused and lacking the testimony of the recording magistrate has no legal sanctity, and that abscondence is merely a corroborative circumstance which cannot form the sole basis for a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a confessional statement where the recording magistrate is not examined as a witness and the confession is retracted?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused persons have already been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz and 2 others vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 13 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-25
  identification paradevisual identificationSection 342 examinationcriminal appealbenefit of doubtprocedural irregularitymurderdacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of identification parades, the reliability of visual identification of unknown assailants, and the legal consequences of the trial court's failure to put all incriminating evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the identification parade procedurally flawed and the visual identification unreliable due to the absence of prior acquaintance and insufficient lighting. Crucially, the trial court’s failure to confront the accused with all incriminating evidence violated the mandatory requirements of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, establishing that conviction cannot rest on suspicion and that procedural safeguards in criminal trials are mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to disclose the features of an unknown suspect in the FIR render an identification parade legally invalid?
  • Is visual identification of an unknown assailant sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence of a trial court's failure to put all incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on suspicion or high probability in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad alias Diloo vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 207 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-24
  murdercriminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtchance witnessballistic expertweapon recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted without prior description of the culprits or proper matching of dummies, the impact of non-production of material witnesses and lack of forensic ballistic reports for recovered weapons, and the sufficiency of evidence in a night-time occurrence. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that material contradictions among eye-witnesses, the absence of prior descriptions of the assailants, flawed identification parade procedures, open eyes and mouths of the deceased casting doubt on witness presence, and uncorroborated weapon recoveries rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The key principles laid down include that the absence of a pre-arrest physical description of unknown culprits renders subsequent identification parades inconsequential, that dock identification without prior identification parade is unsafe, and that weapon recoveries without a positive forensic science laboratory report cannot serve as corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of eye-witnesses to provide a pre-arrest description of unknown assailants render a subsequent identification parade inconsequential?
  • Can dock identification for the first time in court be safely relied upon to convict an accused without a prior valid identification parade?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon usable as corroborative evidence in the absence of a positive Forensic Science Laboratory or ballistic report?
  • Does the non-production of a natural and material witness lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Amb vs The State2020 YLR 300 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-29
  criminal appealdacoityidentification paradeforensic science laboratory reportocular testimonyrecovery of weaponSection 103 CrPCbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity with murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony and weapon recovery. The Federal Shariat Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court established that in-court identification of previously unknown culprits is unreliable without a prior formal identification parade or descriptive benchmark. Furthermore, the Court ruled that unexplained delays in recording witness statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render such testimony unsafe. Regarding forensic evidence, the Court held that sending crime weapons and empty shells to the laboratory together after the weapon's recovery, rather than separately, creates suspicion of tampering and discredits the report. Finally, the Court emphasized that medical evidence is merely confirmatory, not corroborative, and cannot identify an accused, while failure to associate independent witnesses for recovery violates Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an in-court identification of an accused reliable when no formal identification parade was conducted for unknown culprits?
  • Does the simultaneous submission of a recovered weapon and crime-scene empty shells to a forensic laboratory invalidate the forensic report?
  • Can medical evidence serve as corroborative evidence to identify an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during a recovery violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Amb vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (FSC) 181 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-24
  dacoity-murderocular testimonyidentification paradeforensic science laboratory reportrecovery of weaponchance witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial court judgment for a dacoity-murder incident. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of identification evidence in a dark-night occurrence, the validity of recoveries made without independent witnesses, and the evidentiary value of forensic reports where the crime weapon and empty shell were sent for analysis simultaneously. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to the absence of an identification parade, unexplained delays in recording witness statements, and the inherent improbability of identifying assailants from a moving vehicle at night. Furthermore, the court discredited the recovery of the weapon due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and criticized the forensic procedure of sending the weapon and empty shell together, which raises suspicion of tampering. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that simultaneous submission of crime weapons and casings for forensic analysis undermines the integrity of such evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the simultaneous submission of a recovered crime weapon and a crime scene casing to a forensic laboratory sufficient to invalidate the forensic report?
  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade for unknown suspects identified only in court render the identification unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery of a crime weapon violates the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is medical evidence considered a corroborative piece of evidence that can independently connect an accused to a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi vs Dawood and another2020 P Cr.L J 368, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 42 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-27
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtabscondencecontradictory evidenceZina Ordinanceappreciation of evidencecorroborative piece of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2)(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 11/16 of The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of abduction and zina beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's acquittal order warranted interference by the appellate court. The Federal Shariat Court held that the ocular testimony and the conflicting statements of the alleged abductee and eye-witnesses were riddled with material contradictions, rendering them untrustworthy. Furthermore, the court held that abscondence of an accused is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot be used in isolation to sustain a conviction when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved. Emphasizing that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is narrow and that the double presumption of innocence operates in favor of the acquitted accused, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's abscondence when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  • Whether material contradictions and inconsistencies between the statements of the eyewitness and the alleged abductee are sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • Does abscondence by itself constitute a substantive piece of independent evidence of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Younas vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.c. 1670, 2019 P Cr. LJ 1592 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-17
  dacoityfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtnon-compoundable offencescriminal appealacquittalcorroborationmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for dacoity and receiving stolen property. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant’s conviction can be maintained when the prosecution’s evidence was disbelieved regarding five co-accused who were acquitted, and when the complainant attempted to compromise the matter with those co-accused despite the offences being non-compoundable. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the trial court improperly acquitted the co-accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for non-compoundable offences. The Court emphasized the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, ruling that evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused cannot be relied upon to convict the remaining appellant without strong, independent corroboration. Finding the complainant’s testimony unreliable and lacking such corroboration, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. This judgment reaffirms that trial courts cannot permit the compounding of non-compoundable offences and that evidence must be consistent across all accused to support a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for a non-compoundable offence based on a compromise?
  • Does the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' prevent the conviction of an accused based on evidence that was disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused?
  • Is independent corroboration required to maintain a conviction when the sole ocular witness's testimony is found unreliable regarding co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Fayaz Khan2019 PLD Federal Shariat Court 21 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-11
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencerecovery memoProhibition Ordersearch and seizurechemical examiner delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This state appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against the acquittal of the respondent, who had been charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 for possessing local liquor. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt, the effect of failing to associate local witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite advance information, and the evidentiary value of recovery memos bearing the FIR number prior to its registration. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material discrepancies. The Court ruled that recovery and arrest memos prepared before the registration of an FIR but bearing its number lose legal sanctity. Additionally, the unexplained four-day delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner and the failure to join local witnesses created reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that an acquittal reinforces the double presumption of innocence and cannot be disturbed unless the trial court's judgment is arbitrary or speculative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of recovery and arrest memos bearing the FIR number if they were allegedly prepared at the place of occurrence prior to the registration of the FIR?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of the police to associate respectable inhabitants of the locality during a search, despite having advance spy information, violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How does an unexplained delay in dispatching samples of recovered contraband to the chemical examiner affect the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, KPK, Peshawar vs Zubair Ahmad2019 YLR 2329 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-08
  appeal against acquittalcircumstantial evidenceretracted confessionrecovery of stolen propertyidentification testhostile witnessbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The State, through the Advocate-General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, filed an appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court. The respondents had been tried for offenses under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Sections 436, 452, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving arson, theft, and the death of the complainant's wife. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of stolen articles and a retracted confession. The Federal Shariat Court observed that the recovered articles were not sealed at the spot, the police movement was not documented in the daily diary, and the identification test was compromised as the articles were shown to the complainant beforehand. Furthermore, the complainant disclaimed having any proof connecting his son-in-law to the offense. The Court held that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain of events and that conviction cannot be based on suspicion. Finding no perversity or misreading of evidence in the trial court's judgment, the Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is incomplete and not interconnected?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a recovery of stolen articles where the police failed to seal the items at the spot and did not record their movements in the daily diary?
  • Does an identification test of recovered property hold legal validity if the items were shown to the complainant prior to the test?
  • What is the standard of appellate interference required to overturn a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Meharban and 4 others2019 PCr. LJ 1375 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-10
  appeal against acquittalSection 265-K Cr.P.C.Offences Against Property Hudood Ordinancenon-compoundable offencecompromise outside courtno probability of convictionabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  The State appealed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Abbottabad, acquitting the respondents under Section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. The respondents faced trial under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, Sections 452, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The trial court acquitted the accused prior to concluding evidence because no identification parade had been conducted, alleged recoveries were doubtful, and the sole ocular witness/complainant had compromised the matter and raised no objection to acquittal. The core legal question was whether a trial court could invoke Section 265-K to acquit accused persons facing non-compoundable charges when the complainant exonerates them, rendering conviction improbable. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal. It held that Section 265-K empowers the court to prevent futile, prolonged proceedings where there is no probability of conviction, without being constrained by the recording of full evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court invoke Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit accused persons without recording complete evidence?
  • Whether the trial court is justified in acquitting the accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a non-compoundable case where the sole ocular complainant compromises and exonerates the accused?
  • What is the scope of appellate interference against an order of acquittal rendered under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer vs The State and another2019 KLR Criminal Cases 214 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Tabassum Zia vs The State2019 MLD 1466 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-12
  quantum of sentenceenhancement of sentencesodomymitigating circumstancesrevision petitionalternative punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the quantum of sentence awarded to respondent No. 2 upon conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, wherein he was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The core legal question revolves around whether the sentence awarded was adequate and whether enhancement of sentence is warranted under the circumstances of the case. The Federal Shariat Court held that the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court was justified and commensurate with the gravity of the offense, taking into consideration mitigating circumstances such as doubts arising in the prosecution case, the respondent's status as a first offender, his age, and the fact that he had already served out his whole sentence. The court laid down the principle that while determining the quantum of punishment where alternative sentences are provided, factors such as mitigating doubts in the prosecution case, the offender's age, and reformation must be considered, and enhancement of sentence is unjustified where the convict has already served the sentence and no strong grounds exist for interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quantum of sentence awarded under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 can be enhanced in revision when the convict has already served out his whole sentence?
  • Can doubts arising in the prosecution case be considered as mitigating circumstances while determining the quantum of sentence?
  • What factors should be kept in mind by the court while determining the quantum of punishment where alternative sentences are provided?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Zar Muhammad and others2019 YLR 1663, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 533 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-01-18
  acquittal appealcriminal appealidentification paraderecovery memodelay in FIRrobberyburden of proofpresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by the State and the complainant against the acquittal of respondents Zar Muhammad, Usman Ali, Bakht Ali, and Wali Hayat, who were charged with robbery and related offenses. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the charges and whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, including an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of description of the culprits, and the failure to prove the recovered items were indeed the looted property. The Court affirmed the acquittal, emphasizing that interference with an acquittal judgment is only permissible if the trial court's findings are perverse, speculative, or arbitrary, which was not the case here. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay and the identification of recovered property is procedurally flawed, the prosecution fails to meet the burden of proof, and the presumption of innocence in favor of the acquitted accused remains undisturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR without a plausible explanation create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is not perverse or speculative?
  • Is the identification of recovered property valid if the complainant failed to describe the items or identify them among similar objects?
  • Does the recovery of cash from an accused after they have already been searched and detained constitute reliable evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan vs Ibrahim & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1636 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-12-14
  acquittalSection 265-K CrPCnarcotics smugglingprobability of convictionpossession of contrabandhearsay evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was preferred by the State against an order of the Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, which acquitted the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a narcotics case registered under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its power to acquit the accused at an early stage due to a lack of probability of conviction. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish any nexus between the respondents and the recovered contraband. The court emphasized that while a full-fledged trial is the normal course, Section 265-K empowers courts to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction. The court established that 'no probability of conviction' requires a careful evaluation of the evidence collected during investigation. Since the prosecution's case relied entirely on hearsay and spy reports without evidence of possession or custody, remanding the case would be an exercise in futility.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to acquit under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for acquittal prior to the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence?
  • What is the legal standard for determining 'no probability of conviction' under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be convicted for narcotics smuggling based solely on information provided by a secret informant without evidence of possession or custody?
  • Is it appropriate for an appellate court to remand a case for trial when the evidence collected during investigation is insufficient to support a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar alias Sikoo vs State2020 YLR 948, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1361 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-05-10
  criminal appealmurderdacoityidentification paradeeyewitness testimonybenefit of the doubtballistic reportconfession before police
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Sikandar alias Sikoo, under Section 398 and Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to an incident of dacoity and murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the sole eyewitness, the evidentiary value and legality of the identification parade, the admissibility of police disclosures, and the corroborative value of ballistic and medical evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to high stress, weapon focus, and potential prior exposure of the accused. The court further ruled that the identification parade suffered from severe legal and procedural infirmities, police disclosures leading to pointation without subsequent recovery were inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and sending the crime weapon and empty shells together to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiated the ballistic report. The court laid down principles regarding estimator variables affecting human memory in eyewitness identifications and the strict procedural safeguards required for identification parades, ultimately granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and setting aside his conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a sole eyewitness under high stress and weapon focus can form the basis of a safe conviction?
  • Does an identification parade conducted without adhering to mandatory precautions and where the accused was exposed to the witness lose its evidentiary value?
  • Whether a joint or delayed recovery of crime weapons and empty shells sent together to the Forensic Science Laboratory renders the ballistic report unreliable?
  • Are pointation and disclosure statements made to the police inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when no consequential recovery is effected?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ullah and another vs The State and another2019 YLR 1494 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-12-11
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealjuvenile offenderrecovery of crime weaponforensic science laboratorymurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter comprises a jail criminal appeal filed by the appellant Saleem Ullah against his conviction under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 394 read with section 397 of the same Code, along with a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, alleged recoveries of motorcycle parts, a mobile phone, and a pistol, alongside medical evidence. The core legal questions revolved around the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of last-seen testimony, and the integrity of delayed weapon recoveries and forensic reports. The Federal Shariat Court held that the circumstantial chain was incomplete, the last-seen evidence was uncorroborated and untrustworthy, the recoveries were doubtful and inadmissible, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken, conclusive chain of facts pointing solely to the guilt of the accused, and that grave doubts in the prosecution case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated last-seen piece of evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • What are the essential legal requirements for establishing a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances in cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a delayed recovery of a crime weapon and an unsealed or delayed forensic science laboratory report lose its evidentiary value?
  • Can a statement made before police regarding the disclosure and recovery of incriminating articles be used to establish the guilt of the accused under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 87 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-09-12
  concurrent sentencesfederal shariat courtreview of judgmentbeneficial interpretationseparate trialshardship casescriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a miscellaneous application filed through the jail authorities by the petitioner, Nisar, seeking an order under section 35(2) and section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for his sentences awarded in two separate trials to run concurrently. The core legal questions examined by the Federal Shariat Court were whether it possesses the jurisdiction to review its earlier judgment to grant this relief, and whether the facts and law permit the concurrent running of sentences awarded in separate trials. The Court held that it possesses absolute review jurisdiction under Article 203(E)(9) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and that an inadvertent omission by the court to grant concurrent sentences should not prejudice the accused. The ratio decidendi is that beneficial provisions like section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be interpreted liberally in favour of the convict to avoid undue hardship, especially when sentences arise from the same transaction. The Court accordingly accepted the application and ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the power to review its own decisions or orders?
  • Can sentences awarded in separate trials be ordered to run concurrently under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an inadvertent omission by a court to direct sentences to run concurrently can be rectified at a later stage?
  • Should beneficial statutory provisions regarding sentencing be interpreted in favour of the accused to prevent undue hardship?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad and another vs Zar Wali Khan and 4 others2019 YLR 2270 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-02
  acquittal appealidentification paradesupplementary statementnighttime occurrenceweapon recoveryFSL reportbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 17(2) and 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, delayed supplementary nomination statements, flawed identification parades, and manipulated weapon recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt, as the eye-witnesses could not have identified muffled-faced assailants during a nighttime incident in a fleeting glance, the identification parades violated established procedural safeguards, and the weapon and empty shell recoveries were tainted and maneuvered. The court laid down the principle that the injuries of a witness only prove presence at the scene and do not affirm credibility, that supplementary statements implicating accused persons must be discouraged, and that identification parades conducted without assigning specific roles or adhering to strict procedural rules lose evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury sustained by a witness during an occurrence serve as affirmative proof of their credibility and truthfulness regarding the identity of the assailants?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted after a considerable delay and without assigning specific roles to the accused persons?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of weapon recoveries and matching forensic reports when the empty shells and weapons were sent together and manipulated?
  • What is the legal effect of nominating accused persons through a delayed supplementary statement of the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair and another vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1483 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-06-24
  Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Orderchain of custodysafe custodynarcotics recoverycriminal appealacquittalchemical examiner reportevidence evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of hemp. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and secure transmission of the seized samples to the Chemical Examiner, and whether the prosecution evidence was consistent. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody, as the police did not account for the possession of the samples between the date of recovery and the date of delivery to the laboratory. Furthermore, the Court noted material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the vehicle's direction and the failure to distinguish the roles of the occupants. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish an unbroken, indubitable, and secure chain of custody for seized contraband samples; any lapse in this chain renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable and vitiates the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner vitiate a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized contraband from the time of recovery to the time of laboratory analysis?
  • Can material contradictions in prosecution testimony regarding the circumstances of a recovery lead to the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem & another vs State & another2020 YLR 1769, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1176 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-05-16
  dacoityidentification paradebenefit of doubtjoint recoveryocular testimonymisreading of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 395, 397, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of joint identification parades and joint recoveries, and the proper compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to major discrepancies, inconsistent eye-witness accounts, illegalities in conducting joint identification parades without independent witnesses, and misreading of evidence by the trial court. The appellate court set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitting the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down include that joint recoveries and defective identification parades lacking independent witnesses lose evidentiary value, that a judgment must strictly comply with mandatory provisions regarding points for determination, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether joint identification parades conducted without observing proper legal formalities and independent verification lose their evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of weak and contradictory ocular testimony where the culprits' faces were muffled?
  • Is a joint recovery made upon the pointation of multiple accused persons admissible against them in criminal trials?
  • What is the legal effect of a trial court's failure to frame points for determination and state reasons as mandated by section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others2019 YLR 2710 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-30
  QazfZinacriminal appealacquittalburden of proofHudood Ordinances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the Trial Court for the offence of Qazf. The core legal question involves determining whether the allegations and previous statements made by the respondents constituted a specific imputation of 'Zina' as legally defined, sufficient to attract penal consequences under the relevant Qazf law. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a shadow of doubt. The Court laid down the principle that an expression of 'going for the purpose of Zina' or mere suspicion and consultation does not amount to a direct imputation of actual 'Zina' as required by statute, and given the stringent deterrent punishments provided for such offences, harder proof is strictly required.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'going for the purpose of Zina' constitute an imputation of actual Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979?
  • Is mere consultation prior to the registration of a criminal case sufficient to establish a charge of Qazf?
  • Does an acquittal in a previous criminal case automatically prove the ingredients of Qazf against the original complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Bibi vs The State and 5 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C.) 122, 2019 PLD Federal Shariat Court 27 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-30
  acquittalSection 265-K CrPCdying declarationQanun-e-Shahadat OrderabductionZinarelevancy of evidencestar witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an acquittal order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in a private complaint involving charges of abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the victim's cursory statement, recorded prior to her death, could be admitted as a "dying declaration" under Article 46 or as relevant evidence under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, thereby establishing a probability of conviction. The Federal Shariat Court held that the victim's statement did not constitute a dying declaration because the cause of her death was not in issue, nor was it admissible under Article 47, as the accused had no right or opportunity to cross-examine the victim during the preliminary inquiry stage. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that without the star witness, there was no reasonable probability of conviction. The principle laid down is that a statement cannot be treated as a dying declaration unless it relates to the cause of death, and preliminary statements lack admissibility under Article 47 absent a prior right of cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a victim's statement be admitted as a dying declaration under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if the cause of death is not in issue?
  • Does a person complained of have a right to cross-examine a witness during the preliminary inquiry stage of a private complaint?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the star witness dies before trial?
  • Is a cursory statement recorded during a preliminary inquiry admissible under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs State2021 YLR 2405, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1598 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-25
  murdercriminal appealdelayed FIRsupplementary statementidentification paradebenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Liaquat Ali, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder following a delayed FIR and a subsequent supplementary statement. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of a delayed FIR and a belated supplementary statement implicating an accused who was already known to the witnesses, the legality of an identification parade conducted for a known accused after undue delay, and the application of the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, illegal identification procedures, and improvements made in the supplementary statement. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charge. The key legal principles laid down include that a supplementary statement recorded days after the incident cannot be equated with an initial FIR, identification parades of persons already known to witnesses are legally worthless, and deliberate falsehood by a witness attracts the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement recorded days after an incident be equated with an initial first information report?
  • Is an identification parade legally valid when conducted for an accused person who is already known to the eyewitnesses?
  • Whether an accused can be convicted on the same set of evidence that resulted in the acquittal of co-accused without strong independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of a delayed first information report lodged without a plausible explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Mir vs State2020 YLR 881, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1689 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah vs The State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 388, 2018 YLR 2363 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-05-02
  appellate jurisdictionFederal Shariat Courtretracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencecall data recordSection 164 Cr.P.C. statementpointation of crime sceneacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed before the Federal Shariat Court against a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code in a trial initiated under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The preliminary question was whether the Federal Shariat Court possessed appellate jurisdiction despite the trial court convicting solely under the Penal Code. On merits, the core issue was whether circumstantial evidence, an alleged judicial confession, call data records (CDR), and pointation of the crime scene proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Federal Shariat Court held that under Section 24 of the Ordinance, appellate jurisdiction depends on trial cognizance rather than the final verdict, making the appeal competent before it. On merits, the Court found the judicial confession involuntary and flawed, the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement inadmissible under Section 265-J due to non-production of the witness, and the CDR unverified. Additionally, pointation of an already known spot did not constitute discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The appeal was allowed and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a conviction passed under the Pakistan Penal Code lie to the Federal Shariat Court when the trial originated under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. be treated as evidence under Section 265-J Cr.P.C. if the witness is not produced and examined at trial?
  • Does pointation of a crime scene already known and inspected by police constitute discovery of a new fact under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is an uncorroborated and procedural flaw-ridden retracted judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge based on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumo and 4 others vs The State2019 MLD 1966 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-23
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular testimonyunnatural conductdelay in FIRmedical evidenceHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under sections 147, 148, 324, 337-F(i), and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the natural conduct of uninjured eye-witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the ocular account was unnatural and improbable, that material eye-witnesses were not produced, and that significant delays coupled with material contradictions rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that uninjured eye-witnesses remaining completely unharmed during sudden indiscriminate firing runs counter to natural human conduct, and that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the convictions were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uninjured status of alleged eye-witnesses during indiscriminate firing renders their presence at the crime scene doubtful under natural human conduct?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 diminish the evidentiary value of eye-witness testimony?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as a substitute for substantive independent corroboration to connect an accused with the crime?
  • Is the non-production of a material eye-witness sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim and 2 others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (F.S.C) 247, 2019 YLR 2066 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-03-14
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcontradictory medical evidenceocular testimonydirect complaintacquittalfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 394/511, 341, 336, and 337-D read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given material contradictions between the ocular account, direct complaint, FIR, and medical evidence regarding the number of firearm injuries and the allegation of robbery. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on inconsistent and contradictory evidence, and that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of presumptions when the prosecution fails to establish the charge through consistent and confidence-inspiring evidence?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Rashid and 4 others vs Muhammad Yousaf Afridi and 3 others2019 PCr. L J 1480 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-01
  appeal against acquittalconfessional statementhudood ordinancezinachild witnessmedical evidencecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents by the trial court in a case involving murder and zina. The core legal questions concern the legality and voluntariness of confessional statements, the evidentiary value of delayed eye-witness testimony of a tender-aged child, and the proper yardstick for interfering with a judgment of acquittal. The Federal Shariat Court held that confessional statements obtained in violation of statutory procedures and mandatory rules regarding reflection time and custody are involuntary and possess no evidentiary value, that exculpatory confessions cannot incriminate co-accused, and that delayed, tutored testimony of a child witness without corroboration cannot sustain a conviction. Finding no perversity, misreading, or illegality in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, the court laid down that judgments of acquittal will not be interfered with unless the conclusions drawn are speculative, arbitrary, or the result of non-reading of evidence. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a confessional statement recorded without providing sufficient time of reflection and in violation of mandatory procedural rules is admissible in evidence?
  • Can an exculpatory confessional statement be used against a co-accused under circumstantial evidence rules?
  • What is the yardstick for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the delayed and uncorroborated statement of a child witness of tender age suffice to maintain a conviction in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Gohar Khan and another vs State and another2020 YLR 195, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 515 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-02-22
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtjoint recoveryballistic reportcriminal appealmurderrobberychain of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder and robbery, based on an unseen occurrence and circumstantial evidence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence was tainted and insufficient. The Court emphasized that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link must be complete and conclusive; any missing link or doubt necessitates acquittal. The Court found that the recovery of incriminating items was dubious due to joint pointation, unexplained delays in forensic analysis, and the failure to interrogate prime suspects. Furthermore, the Court deprecated the use of supplementary statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as an afterthought to implicate the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their immediate release, reiterating that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the chain of events is incomplete?
  • Is a joint recovery of incriminating articles from multiple accused admissible in evidence?
  • Does the delay in sending crime empties and the weapon to the forensic laboratory render the ballistic report unreliable?
  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to implicate an accused after an initial report?
  Read full judgment →
• Gohar alias Chaman vs The State2019 YLR 1368 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-02-04
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencejudicial confessionmurder referencezina-bil-jabrcapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder and rape of an eleven-year-old girl. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence—specifically 'last seen' testimony, recovery of incriminating items, and a judicial confession—to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charges of murder and rape. It affirmed the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, but acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to insufficient evidence. The Court laid down that circumstantial evidence must be of a conclusive nature, excluding every hypothesis except guilt, with an unbroken chain of events. Furthermore, it emphasized that while 'last seen' evidence is not inherently strong, it becomes conclusive when corroborated by other evidence. Judicial confessions are admissible only if recorded with strict adherence to procedural safeguards, ensuring voluntariness and the absence of police influence.

  Questions settled

  • Under what conditions does 'last seen' evidence become sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • What procedural safeguards must a Magistrate observe to ensure a judicial confession is voluntary and admissible?
  • Does the discovery of incriminating facts based on information provided by an accused in police custody satisfy the requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction for screening of evidence under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of evidence suggesting the destruction of proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yahya vs Asif Khan alias Kaku and 3 others2019 MLD 1910 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-02
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencehudood ordinancemurderconfessional statementdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, which acquitted the respondents of charges relating to murder and robbery. The core legal question before the Federal Shariat Court was whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence leading to acquittal suffered from perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence, thereby warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction against acquittal. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that findings of the trial court were based on proper appreciation of evidence, entitling the accused to a double presumption of innocence. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from material misreading of evidence, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the findings of the trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Does the prosecution carry the burden of proving its case beyond a shadow of doubt in criminal trials?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • What is the scope of appellate jurisdiction under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad Khan and others vs The State through Additional2019 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad Khan and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 485 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ayaz and 2 others vs The State and another2019 YLR 1264 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-17
  criminal appealidentification paradeocular testimonyforensic evidencerecovery of weaponreasonable doubtacquittalrobbery and murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court for murder and robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court emphasized that when culprits are strangers, a proper identification parade is mandatory, and the witness must provide detailed descriptions and specific roles for each accused; failure to do so renders the identification unsafe. Furthermore, the court ruled that recoveries of weapons and stolen money lack evidentiary value when they are not linked to the crime via proper disclosure, when serial numbers of currency are unrecorded, and when the case property is not produced in court. Additionally, the court reiterated that sending crime weapons and empty shells to the forensic laboratory together, coupled with unexplained delays, raises strong suspicion of tampering, thereby invalidating the forensic report. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce stolen property in court during trial invalidate the recovery evidence?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused are strangers to the eyewitness?
  • Does sending crime weapons and empty shells to a forensic laboratory together, with unexplained delay, render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the witness fails to attribute specific roles to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif alias China and another vs The State2019 YLR 1458 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-02-11
  criminal appealrobberybenefit of doubtidentification paradeSection 342 Cr.P.C.delayed FIRappreciation of evidenceHaraabah
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 20 of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for robbery. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inordinate 46-day delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of an identification parade, and material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Court emphasized that the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent and improved upon the initial FIR, and the failure to conduct an identification parade significantly weakened the case. Crucially, the Court ruled that the trial court's failure to confront the accused with the alleged recovery of stolen property during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was a fatal irregularity. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, affirming the principle that any substantial doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to confront an accused with the recovery of incriminating property during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there is an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence?
  • Can a conviction for robbery be upheld in the absence of an identification parade when the accused were previously unknown to the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad alias Diloo vs The State2019 YLR 2719 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-04-25
  criminal appealmurderidentification paradechance witnessmedical evidencerecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jamshoro at Kotri, convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for murder and robbery. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of an identification parade without prior physical description of the culprits, the lack of forensic ballistics reports for recovered weapons, and discrepancies in medical and ocular evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that material contradictions among eyewitnesses, the absence of initial physical descriptions, flaws in the identification parade, and the lack of a Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding the weapon rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a prior physical description of the assailant by eyewitnesses renders a subsequent identification parade inconsequential?
  • Does the failure to send a recovered crime weapon and empties for a Forensic Science Laboratory report make the recovery irrelevant as corroborative evidence?
  • Whether material contradictions among eyewitnesses regarding the manner of assault are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is dock identification of an accused for the first time in court without a prior identification parade considered reliable incriminating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali and another vs The State2019 MLD 1094 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-02-04
  robberybenefit of doubtdelay in FIRidentification paradecontradictions in evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jamshoro @ Kotri, convicting the appellants under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, the legal effect of an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, conducting investigation prior to registering an FIR, and the necessity of an identification parade before a magistrate when the accused were not known to the witnesses prior to the incident. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution case suffered from incurable discrepancies, delayed FIR registration without plausible cause, and absence of valid identification proceedings, which together created reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. The court laid down the principle that investigation of a cognizable offence prior to registering a case violates mandatory legal provisions, that dock identification cannot substitute a formal test identification parade before a magistrate, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution story is concocted and fraught with material contradictions. The impugned judgment was set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether investigation conducted by the police prior to the registration of an FIR is permissible under the law?
  • Is dock identification before the trial court a valid substitute for an identification parade held before a magistrate?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report create fatal doubts in the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions and inconsistencies in the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain alias Javed vs Tahawar Khan S.I., P.S. City Narowal &PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1414 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Bhurt and another vs Ashraf and 4 other2019 YLR 487 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Farhan Ali and 6 othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 438, 2019 YLR 593 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-26
  appeal against acquittaldelay in FIRbenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidencedouble presumption of innocencehudood
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court for an offence under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused, based on material contradictions in witness testimonies, an unexplained eighteen-day delay in lodging the FIR, and failure to identify the recovered property, was perverse or warranted appellate interference. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and appellate courts will not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse, arbitrary, or result in a miscarriage of justice. The court laid down the principle that minor and major contradictions in evidence, combined with an unconvincing delay in reporting the crime and failure to hold identification parades for recovered articles, properly entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Whether contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and eye-witnesses justify extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • What is the scope of appellate jurisdiction under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Muhammad alias Lal Muhammad vs The State2018 PLJ FSC 82, 2018 YLR 1071 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-02-07
  fugitive from justiceright of audiencemurder referenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction and death sentence under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a Murder Reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The appellant, having escaped from jail, was a fugitive from justice. The core legal questions addressed were whether an appeal and a Murder Reference could be adjudicated in the absence of the convict. The Court held that while a fugitive from law forfeits the right of audience, necessitating the dismissal of the appeal, the Court retains the authority and duty to decide the Murder Reference on its merits. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found the prosecution’s case, particularly the identification parade and ocular testimony, riddled with contradictions and improvements. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing that while abscondence warrants the dismissal of an appeal, it does not preclude the Court from examining the merits of a Murder Reference.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court decide a murder reference on merits in the absence of a fugitive convict?
  • Does a fugitive from justice forfeit the right of audience in a criminal appeal?
  • Is an identification parade reliable if witnesses had access to the accused prior to the parade?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the number of culprits is less than five?
  Read full judgment →
• The State and 4 others vs Tariq Hussain and another2018 MLD 1573 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-05-30
  circumstantial evidenceblind murdercall data recordjoint recoveryjoint pointationcriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants for murder and robbery. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including Call Data Records (CDR), the recovery of a mobile phone, and the joint recovery of a vehicle. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete, natural, and conclusive, leaving no reasonable ground for the innocence of the accused; any missing link necessitates acquittal. Specifically, the court ruled that CDRs are inadmissible without authentication or issuance by the cellular service provider. Furthermore, the court held that joint pointation of stolen property by multiple accused is inadmissible, and the recovery of the mobile phone was unreliable due to discrepancies in its description. Consequently, the court found the trial court's judgment suffered from misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence, set aside the convictions, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Call Data Record (CDR) admissible as evidence if it is not authenticated or issued by the cellular service provider?
  • Does the joint pointation of stolen property by multiple accused persons constitute admissible evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is incomplete?
  • Is the recovery of stolen property considered incriminating if the item was not described or identified by the complainant prior to recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Punjab vs Habib2018 P Cr. L J 936 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-03-07
  appeal against acquittalmaintainability of appealAdvocate-GeneralPublic Prosecutorbenefit of doubtappraisal of evidencemurderZina Hudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State through the Advocate-General, Punjab, challenging the acquittal of the respondent from charges under section 10 read with section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal filed by the Advocate-General rather than a Public Prosecutor, and the evaluation of contradictions between ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence. The Federal Shariat Court held that an appeal against acquittal filed by the Advocate-General is incompetent under section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the Advocate-General does not qualify as a Public Prosecutor. Furthermore, on merits, the court found the prosecution's case riddled with material contradictions regarding the alleged motive, the medical evidence, and the failure of witnesses to apprehend the lame accused. The court laid down the principles governing the strict limits of appellate interference in acquittals, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence is doubled upon acquittal and that a judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed if a reasonable view was taken by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against acquittal filed by the Advocate-General is competent under section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the Advocate-General be considered a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence are sufficient to maintain an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General KPK vs Sher Ali Khan and another2018 PLJ FSC 64 · Federal Shariat Court · 2017-11-15
  condonation of delaylimitation periodsufficient causecriminal appealdepartmental sanctiondismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the State through the Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seeking condonation of a 66-day delay in filing a criminal appeal. The core legal question was whether the administrative delay in obtaining departmental sanctions for filing an appeal constitutes 'sufficient cause' under the relevant procedural rules to warrant condonation of delay. The Federal Shariat Court held that the application failed to establish sufficient cause. The Court reasoned that the government is not entitled to preferential treatment compared to ordinary litigants regarding limitation periods, and the petitioner failed to explain the delay of each day. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the law of limitation is not a mere technicality and cannot be bypassed without demonstrating circumstances beyond the party's control. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, as a result, dismissed the criminal appeal in limine. The judgment reaffirms that the burden of proof lies on the appellant to justify delay, and administrative negligence or slackness does not constitute sufficient cause.

  Questions settled

  • Does the administrative delay in obtaining departmental sanctions for filing an appeal constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay?
  • Is the government entitled to be treated differently from an ordinary litigant regarding the law of limitation?
  • Is an appellant required to explain the delay of each and every day when seeking condonation of delay?
  • Can the law of limitation be dismissed as a mere technicality that should not hamper the adjudication of cases on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Raiiman, Constable vs Ikiitar Badshah and others2019 YLR 449, 2018 PLJ FSC 104 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-10-02
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencecriminal proceduremisreading of evidencecharge framing
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karak, regarding charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s judgment suffered from such gross misreading of evidence or legal infirmity as to justify appellate interference. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned, based on a correct appreciation of evidence, and free from jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Court affirmed the principle that an order of acquittal creates a "double presumption of innocence," meaning the accused is presumed innocent both initially and further confirmed by the acquittal. Appellate courts should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse, artificial, or based on a complete misreading of evidence. Where two reasonable views of the evidence exist, the view taken by the trial court must be maintained, as the appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to preventing miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • What is the legal significance of the 'double presumption of innocence' in an appeal against acquittal?
  • Is an appellate court required to interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's judgment is based on a plausible view of the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Qutib vs State2019 MLD 162, 2018 PLJ FSC 98 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-08-08
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcross-examinationappreciation of evidencepolice encounteracquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 398, 324, and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions in the ocular testimony of police witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The court observed that the trial judge ignored critical cross-examination where police witnesses admitted that no independent witnesses were associated, no police personnel were injured, and no physical evidence like empty shells was recovered. The court held that cross-examination is a fundamental legal engine for truth-discovery and cannot be disregarded. Reaffirming the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence, the court ruled that the prosecution must prove its case beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Finding the prosecution's narrative doubtful due to the absence of corroborative evidence and the existence of a tribal dispute, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses in a public place create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the trial court required to consider the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses when evaluating the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be granted to an accused when the prosecution fails to prove the essential ingredients of the charged offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and another vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Faisalabad and 2 others2018 P Cr. L J 1185 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-05-31
  concurrent sentenceslife imprisonmentOffence of Zinainherent powerscriminal miscellaneous applicationsame transactionsentencing clarification
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, convicted under sections 10(4) and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, filed a criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. They sought a clarification that their two sentences of life imprisonment, arising from the same transaction, should run concurrently rather than consecutively, as the previous appellate judgment was silent on the matter. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court possesses the jurisdiction to order concurrent sentences under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the original judgment failed to specify the mode of execution. The Court held that it retains the authority to clarify such judgments to prevent the imposition of excessive sentences, noting that section 20 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, makes the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable mutatis mutandis. The key principle laid down is that where multiple sentences arise from the same transaction and the judgment is silent, the court may invoke its inherent powers to direct that the sentences run concurrently to satisfy the requirements of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the power under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences to run concurrently when the original judgment was silent on the matter?
  • Can sentences of life imprisonment imposed for multiple offences committed in the same transaction be directed to run concurrently?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply mutatis mutandis to cases under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riaz Begum alias Razia vs Mst. Farzana and 3 othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 420, 2018 MLD 1714 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →