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. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Mst. Zarina Versus State2016 PCrLJN 20 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-09
  murderocular accountbenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationcircumstantial evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellants for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, noting that the ocular witnesses were unreliable due to significant contradictions, dishonest improvements in their statements, and an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the court observed that the medical evidence failed to identify the culprits, and the recovered items were not blood-stained, rendering them inconsequential as corroboratory evidence. The court emphasized that in the absence of positive evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained on the mere presumption that a murder occurring within a house must be committed by its occupants. Consequently, the court acquitted both appellants, extending the benefit of the doubt, and declined to confirm the death sentence. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout and cannot shift to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for murder solely on the presumption that the crime occurred within their residence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the ocular account render corroboratory evidence like recoveries insufficient for conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of significant contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Versus Ghulam Farid2016 PCrLJN 18 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-14
  illegal dispossessionjoint propertyco-sharerspartition of landconstitutional petitioncivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and acquitted the respondents. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, apply to property disputes between co-sharers where the property remains joint and subject to pending partition proceedings. The Court held that the Act is not applicable in such circumstances, as all co-sharers enjoy equal status regarding joint property until a formal partition occurs. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish illegal or forcible dispossession, noting that the underlying dispute was a civil matter regarding the partition of joint property. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court's acquittal, ruling that the Illegal Dispossession Act cannot be invoked to settle disputes between co-sharers over joint land. The key principle laid down is that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is not attracted to cases involving joint property where the rights of co-sharers are yet to be determined through partition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to disputes between co-sharers regarding joint property?
  • Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be maintained when a civil suit for partition of the same property is pending?
  • Is a co-sharer considered an exclusive owner of joint land prior to its formal partition?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ali Versus State2016 PCrLJN 16 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-04
  abductioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtinterested witnessdishonest improvementsabscondanceSection 342 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the offence of abduction under Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, an inordinate delay in reporting the crime, and the appellant's defence of a valid marriage. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including multiple versions of the incident, dishonest improvements made by the complainant during testimony, and a failure to provide independent corroboration for the interested testimony of the complainant. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged abscondance of the appellant or recover the weapon and vehicle allegedly used. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is found to be unreliable, contradictory, and riddled with dishonest improvements, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and the court is not required to scrutinize the defence version if the prosecution case itself fails to inspire confidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses provide multiple, contradictory versions of the incident?
  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Is it permissible to rely on the testimony of a witness who has made dishonest improvements to their statement to strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Must the prosecution's evidence be excluded from consideration before examining the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Additional Inspector General of Police (Investigation)2016 PCrLJN 14 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-11
  constitutional petitionchange of investigationreinvestigationreport under section 173 Cr.P.C.power to rescind orderslocus poenitentiaepolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order dated 09.03.2013 passed by the Additional Inspector General of Police (Investigation), whereby the investigation of criminal cases arising from FIR Nos. 174/2012 and 175/12 was changed. The petitioner contended that the respondent had earlier refused to change the investigation and that the matter could not be reopened once challans had been submitted and trial had commenced. The core legal question was whether the competent authority has the power to change or order reinvestigation of a case after the submission of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether such an order violates the principle of locus poenitentiae. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the legislature has not barred reinvestigation even after the submission of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and that by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the competent authority possesses the power to vary, amend, or rescind its orders provided the previous order had not taken legal effect to create vested rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the legislature has barred the reinvestigation of a criminal case after the submission of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does an authority competent to issue an order possess the power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to vary, amend, or rescind the same?
  • When does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to prevent an authority from withdrawing or rescinding an administrative or executive order?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Yameen Awan Versus State2016 PCrLJN 132 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-30
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustpartnership disputemala fidebailable offencestay ordercivil liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from an FIR registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging criminal breach of trust regarding investment funds. The core legal question was whether the dispute, rooted in a partnership agreement, constituted a criminal offence or a civil matter, and whether the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court held that the dispute was essentially civil, concerning a partnership and rendition of accounts, and did not satisfy the requirements of "entrustment" under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be used to coerce compliance in civil disputes. Furthermore, the Court found the registration of the FIR mala fide, given an existing stay order, and noted that the alleged offences, if proven, would fall under bailable provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing that bail is a right in bailable offences and that stay orders operate from the time of issuance, regardless of communication.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute arising from a partnership agreement constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • From what point in time does a stay order operate?
  • Is bail to be granted as a matter of right in bailable offences?
  • Can criminal proceedings be initiated to coerce compliance in a civil dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Bibi Versus District Police Officer, Multan2016 PCrLJN 128 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-09
  change of investigationwrit jurisdictionpolice investigationDistrict Standing Boardprivate complaintcognizance of offencejudicial interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a change of investigation for FIR No. 299/2012, registered at Police Station Qutabpur, Multan. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the initial investigation, had previously approached the Court multiple times, requesting a transfer of the investigation. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere with the police investigation process and order a change of investigation after the challan had already been submitted and cognizance taken by the trial court. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondents had complied with previous directions by having the District Standing Board review the application. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere in police investigations unless there are exceptional grounds or compelling reasons, as established in precedents like Nazir's case and Shehnaz Begum's case. Furthermore, the Court noted that once a challan is submitted and the trial court has taken cognizance, the appropriate remedy for a dissatisfied complainant is to file a private complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court direct a change of investigation after a challan has been submitted and the trial court has taken cognizance of the case?
  • Is the High Court empowered to substitute its own opinion for that of the District Standing Board regarding the necessity of changing an investigation?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a complainant who is dissatisfied with the police investigation after the challan has been submitted to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Shah Versus State2016 PCrLJN 126 · Lahore High Court · 2013-03-18
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtforensic evidencemurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence—specifically last-seen testimony, an extra-judicial confession, and weapon recovery—was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found significant discrepancies: the medical evidence indicated blunt weapon injuries, contradicting the prosecution's claim of a single firearm injury; the crime empties were sent to the forensic laboratory with an unexplained twelve-day delay, destroying their evidentiary value; and the last-seen evidence was weak and uncorroborated. The Court established that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken, credible chain to support a conviction, and that last-seen evidence, in isolation, is insufficient for a capital charge. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of last-seen evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory destroy their evidentiary value?
  • What is the legal effect when medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's ocular account regarding the nature of injuries?
  • Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conviction if it fails to form an unbroken chain of credible corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad alias Nannah Versus State2016 PCrLJN 124 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-21
  abduction for ransomkidnappingdeath sentence mitigationlife imprisonmenttest identification paradevicarious liabilityanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arose from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellants under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing them to death with forfeiture of property for kidnapping a minor for ransom. The primary legal question before the Lahore High Court concerned the quantum of sentence and whether mitigating circumstances warranted reducing the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully established guilt through consistent witness testimony, test identification parades, and recoveries, mitigating factors—specifically that the abductee was released unharmed after two days, co-accused on the same evidence were acquitted, and certain testimonies were delayed—justified altering the punishment. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals regarding conviction, converted the death sentences to life imprisonment under both statutes to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and answered the capital sentence reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether every member of a gang involved in abduction for ransom is vicariously liable regardless of their specific role?
  • Does the absence of physical injury to an abductee who is released after a short duration constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the uncorroborated delay in recording statements of victims and witnesses can create doubt sufficient to influence the quantum of sentence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of extenuating circumstances when the prosecution proves its case but mitigating factors are present?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Versus State2016 PCrLJN 121 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-10
  anti-terrorismcapital punishmentbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencemotiveprivate complaintcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-amd of four deceased persons and sentencing them to death, alongside a connected capital sentence reference. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and the legal effect of delays, improvements in statements, and existing deep-seated enmity. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to tainted and untrustworthy ocular testimony, unexplained delays in the post-mortem examination, contradictions between medical evidence and the ocular account, and the double-edged nature of the unproven motive. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions and death sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in conducting a post-mortem examination suggests deliberations and the procurement of planted eye-witnesses by the police?
  • Does medical evidence regarding the proximity and direction of firearm injuries provide corroboration of an accused person's identity?
  • Can previous enmity between parties act as a double-edged weapon that justifies false implication by interested witnesses?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient for the acquittal of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Masih Versus State2016 PCrLJN 118 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-24
  criminal appealdeath sentenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtkidnapping for ransomanti-terrorismocular evidencerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Imran Masih, for offences under Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given conflicting ocular accounts and questionable identification procedures. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, improvements, and doubts. Specifically, the Court found that the identification parade was unreliable because the investigating officer admitted the accused was exposed to the witnesses prior to the parade. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon and ransom money, occurring over a year after the incident, was deemed implausible and inconsequential. Emphasizing the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, not grace. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the Capital Sentence Reference in the negative, refusing to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exposure of an accused to witnesses prior to an identification parade render the parade invalid?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when key prosecution witnesses fail to identify the accused during the trial?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating evidence after a significant delay, without explanation, constitute reliable corroborative evidence?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of right or grace for an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Hayat Versus State2016 PCrLJN 116 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-17
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencejoint pointationbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court upon the appellants for murder, kidnapping, and robbery. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, specifically regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the reliability of 'last seen' evidence, the admissibility of joint pointation and recovery, and the consistency of the prosecution's narrative. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the nine-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with material improvements in witness testimony, rendered the prosecution's version unreliable. Furthermore, the court ruled that joint pointation and recovery of the dead body and weapons were inadmissible and lacked corroboration. Emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain of cogent proof, the court acquitted the appellants, noting that the benefit of the doubt must always favor the accused. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is disbelieved regarding co-accused, it cannot be safely relied upon for others without strong, independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint pointation of a crime scene or recovery of a dead body by multiple accused admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when the prosecution's case contains material improvements and contradictions?
  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, without sufficient explanation, create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of witnesses who improved their statements at trial be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali Versus State2016 PCrLJN 113 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-27
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionjuvenile offenderkidnapping for ransomoverriding effectidentification paradecircumstantial evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of a juvenile appellant for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, specifically kidnapping for ransom and murder. The core legal question is whether a juvenile offender can be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court, notwithstanding the protections afforded by the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. It held that the Anti-Terrorism Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The judgment affirms that the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 contains provisions with an overriding effect over other laws, including the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, meaning a child below eighteen years can legitimately be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court for terrorism-related offences. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that identification parades are not a mandatory legal requirement where identification is otherwise proven, and that the testimony of witnesses is judged by quality rather than quantity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a juvenile offender be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court for terrorism-related offences?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 have an overriding effect over the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  • Is an identification parade a mandatory legal requirement for conviction if identification is otherwise proven?
  • Can a confessional statement of a co-accused be used as circumstantial evidence against another accused under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Abaidullah alias Habib Versus State2016 PCrLJN 11 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-19
  murderdeath sentencerejection of ocular accountchance witnessesunproven motivebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Abaidullah alias Habib, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of Muhammad Subhan. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was seen by eyewitnesses committing the murder at night under an electric bulb after a motive involving harassment of a woman. Upon review, the Lahore High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the motive, as the principal person concerned was never examined. The court further held that the eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the spot was highly improbable, that the source of light (bulb) was not recovered or proved, and that material discrepancies existed regarding the time of death and the lodging of the First Information Report. Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of chance witnesses who do not reside near the place of occurrence can be relied upon to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive weaken its case against the accused?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when material discrepancies exist between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the time of death?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery made from an open and accessible place when the primary ocular testimony has been disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad Versus State2016 PCrLJN 108 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-07
  abduction for ransombenefit of doubtdelayed FIRpolice investigationappellate acquittalanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of abduction for ransom beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence produced. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution story was unnatural, inconsistent, fraught with improbable details regarding the alleged escape of the abductee, and uncorroborated by reliable evidence, while the FIR was tainted by delayed and suspicious preliminary investigations. The court laid down the principle that unconvincing testimonies, unexplained delays coupled with unregistered preliminary police actions, and meaningless recoveries cannot sustain a conviction, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the dismissal of the connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated and improbable account of escape by an abductee is sufficient to maintain a conviction under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an FIR recorded after holding preliminary police investigations for hours without recording entries in the police daily diary?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove abscondence through legal warrants weaken the case against the accused?
  • Whether recoveries of items unconnected to the crime can serve as corroborative evidence to establish the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Saboor Khan Versus State Malik Sajjad Haider Maitla2016 PCrLJN 104 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-04
  post-arrest bailabductionransomprohibitory clausecriminal conspiracytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for post-arrest bail filed by Saboor Khan, Sanoobar Shaheen, and Zahoor Hussain in connection with FIR No. 504/2014 registered under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 at Police Station Saddar Khanewal for the abduction of the complainant's son. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given their nomination by the abductee, recovery of the vehicle used, and the gravity of the offense. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petitions, holding that the petitioners were specifically nominated by the abductee, the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and no mala fide or ill-will was established on the part of the complainant. The key principle laid down is that demand of ransom is sufficient to constitute the offense, and tentative assessment of evidence showing prima facie involvement in a heinous crime disentitles the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused are specifically nominated by the abductee and the offense falls within the prohibitory clause?
  • Is the actual payment of ransom necessary to constitute an offense under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or is the mere demand of ransom sufficient?
  • Does previous tenancy or landlord-tenant dispute automatically establish mala fide for the false involvement of accused persons in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wahdul Mai Versus District Police Officer, Muzaffargarh2016 PCrLJN 103 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-22
  habeas corpusfundamental rightspolice trainingconstitutional obligationsillegal detentionlaw enforcement education
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged illegal detention of a person by the police. During the proceedings, the court examined the Station House Officer regarding his awareness of constitutional safeguards during arrest. It was revealed that the police officer was unfamiliar with Article 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantees fundamental rights regarding arrest and detention. The court expressed strong disapproval of the lack of constitutional knowledge among law enforcement personnel, emphasizing that obedience to the Constitution and law is an inviolable obligation for all citizens, including state officials, under Article 5 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition as the detenue had been produced and was in valid police custody. However, it issued a directive to the Ministry of Interior and provincial authorities to mandate the inclusion of Chapter I (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as a compulsory subject in all training curricula for law enforcement agencies across the country.

  Questions settled

  • Is obedience to the Constitution and law an inviolable obligation for all persons within Pakistan?
  • Does the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provide specific safeguards regarding arrest and detention?
  • Are law enforcement agencies required to include fundamental rights in their training curricula?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain Versus State2016 PCrLJN 1 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-18
  capital sentencedacoitymurderpolice encountertest identification paradeforensic evidenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arise from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for dacoity and the murder of a gunman during a jewelry shop robbery. The core legal questions involved the legality of a joint conviction under anti-terrorism and penal laws, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, the necessity of a test identification parade where accused are arrested following a police encounter, and the reliability of medical evidence without a formal post-mortem examination. The Lahore High Court held that appellate forums are competent to cure technical illegalities in judgments, that prompt FIR lodging and direct eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and positive forensic reports establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that test identification is unnecessary when accused are apprehended at the scene. The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the convictions, and confirmed the death sentences, laying down principles regarding the appreciation of circumstantial and forensic evidence in armed dacoity and murder cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is competent to cure illegalities in a joint conviction under anti-terrorism and penal provisions?
  • Is a test identification parade necessary when accused persons are caught red-handed or following a police encounter?
  • Can medical evidence establish the cause of death in the absence of a formal post-mortem examination?
  • Does the absence of specific roles assigned in the initial crime report vitiate subsequent conviction when established by eyewitness and forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Versus Amjad Iqbal2020 CLCN 6 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Versus Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member Board of Revenue/Notified Officer, Punjab2020 CLCN 48 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustansir Versus Mahndi Khan2020 CLCN 4 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Versus Revisional Authority2020 CLCN 36 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-18Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Versus Member (Judicial-III), Bor2020 CLCN 34 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shanzey Khan Versus Muhammad Asim Syed Mumtaz Ali Shah Hamdai2020 CLCN 32 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Begum Versus Military Estate Officer2020 CLCN 30 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-18Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Versus State2020 CLCN 28 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hurr Versus District Collector Bhakkar2020 CLCN 23 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Faqeer Muhammad2020 CLCN 21 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Muhammad Versus Raqia Begum (Deceased)2020 CLCN 19 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sitara Chemicals Industries Versus Federation of Pakistan through SecretaryPetroleum Ministry of Petroleum, Islamabad2020 CLCN 18 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sikandar Versus Additional District Judge, Kamalia2020 CLCN 14 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Kabir Muhammad (Deceased) Versus Allah Bakhsh (Deceased)2020 CLCN 12 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Khubaib Khan Versus Additional District Judge, Mian Channu2020 CLCN 10 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zenab Bibi Versus Ahmad Yar2020 CLCN 1 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed Versus Muhammad Asim2019 CLCN 68 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha Altaf Versus Fahad Ali2019 CLCN 66 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farrah Naz Versus Malik Shahbaz Ali2019 CLCN 62 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan Versus Mst. Armeen Ahmed (Minor)2019 CLCN 53 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain Versus Munawar Hussain2019 CLCN 49 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ch. Tariq Mehmood Versus Khadim Hussain (Deceased)2019 CLCN 46 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Defence Authority Versus Muhammad Rafique2019 CLCN 42 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Nasir Sharif Versus Muhammad Afzal2019 CLCN 40 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Versus Ch. Tajammal Hussain2019 CLCN 38 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• Rubina Habib Versus Province of Punjab2019 CLCN 36 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Versus Additional District Judge2019 CLCN 32 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Versus Mst. Zahida Parveen2019 CLCN 30 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-14Read full judgment →
• Malik Zaheer Abbas Versus Additional District Judge2019 CLCN 27 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-15Read full judgment →
• Zaka Ullah Malik Versus Chief Administrator Auqaf2019 CLCN 20 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid (Deceased) Versus Mst. Sultana Begum2019 CLCN 18 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Versus Member (Judicial-v)/Notified Officer, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore2019 CLCN 11 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen Versus Muhammad Sarwar2019 CLCN 1 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ameena Haq Versus Rab Nawaz Khan2018 CLCN 92 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus Additional District Judge2018 CLCN 90 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid Versus Additional District Judge2018 CLCN 86 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-11Read full judgment →
• Maham Jahangir Versus Government of Punjab2018 CLCN 80 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Sagheer Shah Versus Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Department, D.G. Khan2018 CLCN 8 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq through Muhammad Zaman Versus Member (Judicial-v) Board of Revenue2018 CLCN 73 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-07Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Akhtar Versus Muhammad Saleem Shad Qureshi2018 CLCN 7 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Naeem Versus Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore2018 CLCN 67 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-30Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority Versus Bashir Ahmad2018 CLCN 63 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-28Read full judgment →
• Hameed Versus Abdul Qadeer2018 CLCN 62 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan Iqbal Hashmi Versus Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore2018 CLCN 60 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-04Read full judgment →
• Raees Ahmad Versus Jannat Bibi2018 CLCN 57 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif Lalika Versus Returning Officer2018 CLCN 54 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus Additional District Judge2018 CLCN 52 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Adil Hussain Versus Vice-Chancellor, Unitersity of Gujrat2018 CLCN 5 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-18Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus Sultan Muhammad2018 CLCN 49 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muzammil Hussain Versus Additional District Judge2018 CLCN 45 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-09Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq Versus Rent Controller/Civil Judge, Multan2018 CLCN 42 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Hanif Versus Bakhsh2018 CLCN 41 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Khokhar Versus Abdul Latif Khan2018 CLCN 40 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sughran Bibi Versus District and Sessions Judge, Lahore2018 CLCN 38 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan Versus Saddar-Ud-Din2018 CLCN 37 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Versus Mst. Ruqia Begum2018 CLCN 35 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Qazi Muhammad Rashid2018 CLCN 34 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mian Zaheer Ahmad Versus Muhammad Sabir2018 CLCN 33 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• Nimra Sohail Versus Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education2018 CLCN 31 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-23Read full judgment →
• Indo Pakistan Corporation Limited Versus Manzoor-Ul-Haq Pandit2018 CLCN 30 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Sh. Dilshad Ahmad Versus Additional District Judge2018 CLCN 3 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-20Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hayat Versus Muhammad Ijaz Hussain2018 CLCN 29 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina alias Rubi Versus Additional District Judge2018 CLCN 27 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal Adminsitration Kasur Versus Malik Abid Hussain Baito2018 CLCN 26 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain Shah Versus Aurangzeb2018 CLCN 25 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad Shah alias Munir Ahmad Shah Versus Chairman Federal Land Commission, Islamabad2018 CLCN 23 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Munawar Bibi Versus Mst. Farzana2018 CLCN 22 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-22Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher Versus Muhammad Rafique2018 CLCN 21 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
• Qasim Raza Versus Additional District Judge Mailsi District Vehari2018 CLCN 2 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-07Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus Muhammad Akram2018 CLCN 19 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qadir Dad Versus Easal2018 CLCN 18 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus Akhtar Ali2018 CLCN 16 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Muhammad Azam2018 CLCN 15 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Versus Falak Sher Khan2018 CLCN 133 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad Versus Muhammad Asif2018 CLCN 13 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-22Read full judgment →
• Khushi Mohammad Versus District Collector, Lodhran2018 CLCN 128 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Asghar Ali Naseem2018 CLCN 125 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal Administration Versus Khalid Rafique Ahmed2018 CLCN 120 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleema Bibi Versus Additional District Judge, Layyah2018 CLCN 12 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Additional District Judge, Ali Pur2018 CLCN 112 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Nadeem Versus Additional District Judge, Multan2018 CLCN 108 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Hussain Shah Versus Additional District Judge2018 CLCN 106 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz Mai Versus Ghulam Abbas2018 CLCN 104 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-06Read full judgment →