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. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Ahmed Nawaz Khan vs Qadar Nawaz Khan2025 PHC 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• Aftab-ud-Din vs State & others2025 PHC 232 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-07Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahman vs The State2025 PHC 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-10Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Mir & another vs The State etc2025 PHC 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs Shaukat Zaman and others2025 YLR 620 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waqeel and others vs The State and others2025 PHC 58 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Khan Adv vs Govt of Kp etc2025 PHC 230 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum & four others vs Muhammad Shafi2025 PHC 192 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The State & another2025 PHC 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Manzoor Ellahi2025 YLR 911 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Azeem vs District Megistrate/Deputy Commissioner & others2025 PHC 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abbasi Fazal-i-Haq vs Aamir Khan, Aag2025 PCRLJ 523 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-19
  criminal revision petitionvideo link evidencerecording of evidencecomplainant abroadconstructive presencewitness identity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the trial court dismissing an application to examine the complainant, residing in Germany, through a video link. The core legal question was whether the evidence of a witness or complainant residing abroad can be recorded through a video link in criminal proceedings. The Peshawar High Court held that modern technology and the recording of evidence through video conferencing should be encouraged, and that the word 'presence' in relevant procedural provisions includes constructive presence via video link. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to arrange for the examination of the complainant via video link, subject to prior ascertainment of his identity. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise their discretion to record evidence through video conferencing to prevent unnecessary delay, expense, or inconvenience, provided proper safeguards are maintained regarding the witness's identity and freedom from undue influence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the evidence of a complainant residing abroad be recorded through a video link in a criminal trial?
  • Does the word 'presence' in Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include constructive presence through video conferencing?
  • What precautions must a trial court take when recording the statement of a witness through a video link?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Khan and others vs Kachkol Khan2024 YLR 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs The State etc.2024 PHC 20, 2024 YLR 2391 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Zareen Gul S/o Nazar Gul, Caste Pathan, R/o Post Office New Darband,2024 PHC 336 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zakir Said vs Returning Officer Na-5 District Dir Upper and others2024 PHC 3 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
• Zahir Abbas vs The State etc.2024 PHC 194 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ullah Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Through its2024 PHC 178, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 126 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zafar Khan vs Saddam Hussain and others2024 PHC 94, 2024 PLD Peshawar 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-14Read full judgment →
• Yasir vs The state & another2024 PHC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-17
  circumstantial evidenceDNA profilingjudicial confessionrape and murderchild protectioncriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Child Protection Court for the murder and rape of a minor girl. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including DNA analysis and a judicial confession. The Court held that the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, linking the appellant to the crime through forensic DNA matching, the appellant's voluntary judicial confession, and the recovery of incriminating articles. The Court affirmed that DNA evidence is a powerful tool in the search for truth in criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence forms an organic, compact chain connecting the accused to the crime, and is supported by reliable forensic evidence and a voluntary confession, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction for heinous offences, justifying the imposition of the maximum penalty without leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder and rape be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible if the accused claims it was obtained through torture?
  • What is the evidentiary value of DNA profiling in establishing the identity of an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession necessarily render it involuntary or unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir Manzoor Amin vs Dr. Mehreen Iqbal and others2024 PHC 282, 2025 MLD 479 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• Wazir Badshah and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Wajid Usman and another vs Qabil Khan and others2024 PCRLJ 1094 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-16
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIREx-officio Justice of Peaceunnatural deathpolice inquirysection 22-A Cr.P.C
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, whereby a petition under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was accepted and the police were directed to register a formal FIR regarding an unnatural death. The core legal question was whether an Ex-officio Justice of Peace can mechanically order the registration of an FIR under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the record or inquiry already conducted under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The court held that an Ex-officio Justice of Peace must not act mechanically by merely considering the applicant's version, but must apply their mind and examine all facts, circumstances, and available inquiry records before ordering the registration of a criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Ex-officio Justice of Peace order the registration of an FIR in a mechanical manner under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory for a Justice of Peace to examine the police inquiry record and apply judicial mind before directing the registration of a criminal case?
  • What is the scope and purpose of an inquiry conducted under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an unnatural death?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ghani vs Wakeel Ghani2024 PHC 252 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-18Read full judgment →
• Wahid Khan and another vs Secretary Mines and Minerals, Khyber2024 CLC 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-19Read full judgment →
• Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Pvt Ltd and others vs Muhammad Arif2024 PHC 398 · Peshawar High Court
  gratuitywages definitionworkman statusterritorial jurisdictionrecurring cause of actionpayment of wageslabour revision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court resolves a batch of labour revision petitions filed by the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan against concurrent findings of the Authority and the Labour Court, which had allowed the retired employees' claims for gratuity under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013. The core legal questions involved whether gratuity falls outside the definition of 'wages' under the Act, whether the respondents qualified as 'workmen', whether the Authority at Haripur possessed territorial jurisdiction, and whether the claims were barred by limitation. The Court held that gratuity payable upon discharge does not exclude retirement gratuity where discharge is undefined and cannot be equated with superannuation retirement, that the Act applies broadly to 'employees' rather than being strictly restricted to workmen, that non-payment of gratuity constitutes a continuing wrong creating a recurring cause of action, and that the Authority possessed proper territorial jurisdiction. The revision petitions were accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether gratuity falls within the definition of wages under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013?
  • Does the exclusion of gratuity payable on discharge under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 apply to employees who retire upon attaining the age of superannuation?
  • Are the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 restricted solely to 'workmen' or do they apply to all categories of employees?
  • Does the refusal to pay gratuity amount to a continuing wrong creating a recurring cause of action for the purpose of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Usama s/o Muhammad Raheem vs The State etc2024 PHC 258, 2025 YLR 721 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-23Read full judgment →
• Umer Khan and 22 others vs Member-I, Board of Revenue, Khyber2024 YLR 552 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-27Read full judgment →
• Umar Daraz alias Muhammad Umar vs Mst. Durdana etc2024 PHC 364 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ubaid Khan and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 1378 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-24
  out of turn promotionaccelerated promotionpolice force incentivescadet instructorsPolice Rules 1934Validation of Standing Order Act 2005Police Policy Board
  Summary & questions settled

  Peshawar High Court heard multiple connected writ petitions challenging departmental orders and minutes of the 56th Police Policy Board directing the implementation of Supreme Court judgments (including 2013 SCMR 1752 and 2017 SCMR 206) regarding out-of-turn promotions across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The petitioners asserted that their accelerated positions were earned through merit, instructional service, and academic excellence under Standing Order No. 11 of 1987, Standing Order No. 7 of 2003, Rule 13.6(1) of the Police Rules 1934, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Validation of Standing Order Act 2005, rather than discretionary out-of-turn promotions for gallantry granted under civil servant statutes of Sindh and Punjab. The High Court set aside the impugned orders, holding that the respondents acted superficially without distinguishing gallantry-based individual promotions from structured, merit-based instructional incentives established by provincial law. The Court referred the matter to the Provincial Government through the Chief Secretary to clarify its policy stance and prohibited any adverse action against the petitioners pending policy streamlining.

  Questions settled

  • Can accelerated positions granted under structured merit criteria and validated statutory standing orders be automatically equated with illegal out-of-turn promotions granted for gallantry under civil servant laws?
  • Whether departmental authorities may mechanically apply Supreme Court judgments declaring out-of-turn promotions unconstitutional without examining the underlying legal frameworks and circumstances of incentives granted under provincial police rules?
  • Can adverse administrative actions be taken to revert civil servants from accelerated positions earned under statutory incentive policies before the competent provincial government formally decides on whether to amend or withdraw those policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Tufail Muhammad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through the chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others2024 PHC 314, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 459 · Peshawar High Court
  deputationabsorptionProvincial Management Servicevested rightrepatriationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to declare the refusal to absorb the petitioner's services in the Provincial Management Service (PMS) as illegal and to direct his absorption. The core legal question was whether an employee of a Federal Autonomous Body serving on deputation in the Provincial Government has a vested right to absorption or indefinite deputation in the provincial service. The Peshawar High Court held that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on deputation or to be absorbed into the borrowing department, and that rules governing the Provincial Management Service do not permit the absorption of employees from Federal Autonomous Bodies. The court laid down the principle that appointment by absorption of deputationists outside their cadre is impermissible, and a deputationist can be repatriated to their parent department at any time by the competent authority without assigning reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on deputation for a stipulated period or to be absorbed in the borrowing department?
  • Can employees of Federal Autonomous Bodies be absorbed into the Provincial Management Service under the Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007?
  • Is the competent authority required to assign reasons for the repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Transparency International Pakistan vs Noor Muhammad Khan2024 PHC 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shafi Ullah Alias Gura2024 PHC 232, 2025 YLR 506 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-11Read full judgment →
• The State through A.A.G. vs Akbar Khan and another2024 YLR 1662 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-14
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencecall detail recordmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as it was an unseen occurrence with no eyewitnesses, relying instead on a missing report, call detail records, motive, and a retracted confession. The Peshawar High Court examined the record and noted major contradictions regarding the cell numbers, failure of the prosecution to obtain and produce necessary call detail records to substantiate the telephonic communications or trace the unknown caller, and the hostility of key witnesses who failed to support the prosecution's version of events. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld based on the established principle that benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment can be interfered with when the prosecution fails to establish its case through reliable direct or circumstantial evidence?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
  • Does the failure to obtain and produce call detail records to verify crucial telephonic communications create a fatal flaw in a circumstantial evidence case?
  • Are corroboratory pieces of evidence like recoveries and confessions helpful to the prosecution when the primary charge has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• The State and others vs Nisar Ali Khan and others2024 PHC 400, 2025 PCRLJ 936 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-08
  superdaritampered chassisbona fide purchaservehicle registrationcriminal investigationdue diligencepublic safety
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several consolidated writ petitions filed by the State challenging the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, which directed the return of seized motor vehicles to the respondents on superdari. The core legal question was whether vehicles with tampered, welded, or refitted chassis numbers, which are subject to ongoing criminal investigations for fraud and forgery, should be released to individuals claiming to be bona fide purchasers. The Court held that the vehicles could not be returned, setting aside the revisional court's judgments. The ratio of the decision is that vehicles with tampered chassis numbers lack legal legitimacy and cannot be permitted to ply on public roads, as doing so would undermine vehicle registration systems and public safety. Furthermore, the Court established that a purchaser cannot claim the status of a 'bona fide purchaser' if they failed to exercise due diligence or care regarding the vehicle's legal status and history of alterations at the time of purchase. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate retrieval of the vehicles from the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle with a tampered or refitted chassis number be released on superdari to a claimant?
  • Does a purchaser of a vehicle with an altered chassis number qualify as a bona fide purchaser if they failed to verify the vehicle's history?
  • Is the owner of a vehicle required to report alterations to the chassis to the registration authority under the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
  • Does the court have the authority to order the retrieval of vehicles previously released on superdari if the vehicles are subject to criminal investigation for tampering?
  Read full judgment →
• The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others vs M_S Hma Pumps (Pvt) Ltd Office No.10, 3rd Floor the Mall Tower Mall Road, Peshawar Cantt. and another2024 PHC 296, 2025 PLD Peshawar 41, 2025 CLD 133, 2024 PHC 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Commissioner Bajaur and others vs Mst. Mahi Sultan and another2024 CLC 64 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Corporate Zone), Peshawar vs M/s.PTCL 2024 CL. 114, 2024 PTD 1214 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
• The Board of Governors through its Chairman Khyber Teaching Hospital2024 PHC 292 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tauheed Farooqi vs Faiqa Anmol and others2024 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Masood Hussain Shah and others vs National Accountability Bureau2024 PHC 266 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Lehazullah vs Housing Director through Housing Director General and another2024 PHC 284, 2025 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Khan alias Malangi vs The State2024 YLR 1172 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-17
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesice recoverydirectory nature of rulesforensic science laboratory reportprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Syed Khan alias Malangi, who was charged under section 11(b) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, following the recovery of 527 grams of 'ice' from his possession. The core legal question was whether the delay in dispatching the narcotic sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond the 72-hour period prescribed by Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, entitled the petitioner to the grant of bail. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as the record prima facie connected him to the offence and the punishment fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in 'Gull Din v. The State', the Court laid down the principle that Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, is directory in nature, and its non-compliance does not constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to dispatch narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory within 72 hours under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the non-compliance with the 72-hour sample dispatch rule automatically entitle an accused to bail in narcotic cases?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics, supported by a positive chemical analysis report, satisfy the prima facie connection required to deny bail under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kalam Shah & another vs Shafiq-ur-Rehman & another2024 PHC 376, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Jaffar Shah and others vs Mst. Gulshan and others2024 PHC 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad vs The State and others2024 PHC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Sunni Ittehad Council etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 PLJ Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-14Read full judgment →
• Sunni Ittehad Council and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PLD Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Sultani Room son of Shah Zamin, Sanobar Khan son of Said Haroon vs The State & another, Sultani Room & another2024 PHC 88 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sultan-E-Room vs Gul Roz Khan and others2024 YLR 2218 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Suleman Shah and 6 others vs Mian Nisar Ahmad (deceased) through L.2024 YLR 1024 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Suleman and 7 others vs Jawad Khan and 2 others2024 PHC 64, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Suhbat Khan and others vs Hazrat Gul and others2024 PHC 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-14Read full judgment →
• Suhbat Khan and 5 others vs Kandi Barami Tappa Karna Khel, Khyber2024 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
• State Manager KP, Ezdmc etc. vs Raja Igbal Hussain & others2024 PHC 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sohaila vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E&Sed, Peshawar, etc2024 PHC 412 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sofia Waqar Khattak vs The Hon'ble Peshawar High Court, Peshawar2024 PLC (C.S.) 1302 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-03
  service appealmajor penaltyreduction in rankefficiency and discipline rulesdispensing with inquirymisconductselection committeejudicial academy
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged an order imposing a major penalty of reduction in rank under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011, grounded on allegations of illegally recommending a candidate for the post of Private Secretary in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Academy. The core legal questions involved whether the dispensation of a regular departmental inquiry was legally justified under the circumstances and whether sufficient material existed to connect the appellant with the alleged misconduct. The court held that the record was deficient and lacked sufficient documentary evidence to justify dispensing with a regular inquiry, thereby depriving the appellant of a fair opportunity to defend herself. The court set aside the impugned notification imposing the penalty, holding that where material is insufficient and contested facts require examination, adopting the regular inquiry procedure is mandatory. The key principle laid down is that while the competent authority may dispense with an inquiry under the efficiency and discipline rules when sufficient material is available, dispensing with an inquiry without adequate and satisfactory documentary evidence on record violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Competent Authority can legally dispense with a regular departmental inquiry under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011 without sufficient material on record?
  • Does the failure to conduct a regular inquiry in the absence of solid documentary evidence violate the right of defense of a civil servant?
  • Whether an order imposing a major penalty based on a defective fact-finding inquiry and without holding a regular departmental inquiry is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs The State etc2024 PHC 200, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1051 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman and others vs The State through Additional Advocate General2024 PHC 338 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sher Bahadar and others vs Abdul Wakil and others2024 PHC 386, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• Shazia Tehmas Khan etc vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PHC 290, 2025 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• Shandanda Gulzar Khan daughter of Gulzar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan2024 PHC 260 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shakoor Khan son of Mohabat Khan vs The State etc2024 PHC 358 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ullah and others vs The State and others2024 PHC 362 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad son of Wali Muhammad vs The State2022 PHC 274, 2024 YLR 766 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• Shahid Zaman vs The State etc2024 PHC 354 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-24
  double murderchance witnessinterested witnessmedical evidence conflictunproved motivebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 302/311 PPC and Section 15 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, resulting in death sentences on two counts and imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance and interested eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and forensic reports, the proof of alleged motive, and the reliability of circumstantial evidence in a double murder case. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses, that contradictions between the ocular and medical accounts weakened the case, and that unproved motive and isolated forensic evidence were insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court laid down the principle that where eyewitness testimony is found unreliable and the prosecution fails to establish its case through independent corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to his acquittal and the rejection of the murder reference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance and interested witness can be relied upon without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a positive forensic firearms report and weapon recovery when ocular testimony is disbelieved?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive behind a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Gul vs Govt of KP through Chief Secretary and 03 others2024 PHC 180, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1411, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 149 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-15
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantconstitutional petitiontransfer and posting
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant initially appointed as a Lecturer and later promoted to Assistant Professor, was posted on deputation as Deputy Director (Admn) in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Frontier Education Foundation. After filing a complaint against the Acting Managing Director of the foundation, leading to an inquiry revealing irregularities, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department and transferred via impugned office orders. He challenged these orders under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, arguing mala fide and a right to complete his deputation tenure. The Peshawar High Court held that a civil servant on deputation has no vested right to complete a normal tenure and can be repatriated at any time without assigning reasons. The Court emphasized that deputation is a temporary administrative arrangement, and civil servants are liable to serve anywhere. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed in limine as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to complete a normal deputation tenure?
  • Can a deputationist be repatriated to their parent department at any time without assigning reasons?
  • Is the repatriation of a civil servant from a deputation post open to challenge in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan vs Zainul Abidin through legal heirs and others2024 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Shabeer Ahmad vs Assistant Commissioner Babuzai Swat and others.2024 PHC 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-13
  allotment of government accommodationpublic office holderlocus poenitentiaeillegal orderrectification of administrative ordereligibility criteriawrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his allotment of a government bungalow by the Assistant Commissioner, arguing he was eligible under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Residential Accommodation at Districts (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 2018. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner qualified as a "public office holder" eligible for such accommodation and whether the authority possessed the power to recall an allotment order found to be inconsistent with the law. The Court held that the petitioner, an employee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, did not fall within the definition of "public office holder" under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018, and was therefore ineligible for the allotment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an authority is empowered to rectify or rescind an order that is violative of law or rules, as the principle of locus poenitentiae does not protect orders that are inherently illegal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court observing that no legal right can be claimed based on an illegal order.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of a Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education considered a public office holder for the purpose of government residential accommodation allotment?
  • Does a public functionary have the authority to recall or cancel an allotment order that was initially passed in violation of the law?
  • Can a party claim a vested right based on an order that is inherently illegal or contrary to statutory rules?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to protect an order that is violative of the governing law or rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State & another2024 PHC 148 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-23
  murder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessabscondencemotivequantum of sentencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a connected revision petition arising from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the impact of the prosecution's failure to establish a clear motive, and whether the sentence of life imprisonment required enhancement. The Peshawar High Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision petition, affirming the conviction and sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent and natural ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the appellant's unexplained long-term abscondence. The Court laid down that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them 'interested' if their presence is natural and their testimony is confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, it affirmed that while the absence or uncertainty of a motive does not necessitate acquittal, it serves as a valid mitigating circumstance for determining the quantum of sentence, justifying the trial court's discretion in awarding life imprisonment rather than capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or interested?
  • Can the absence or uncertainty of a motive be considered a mitigating circumstance for the quantum of sentence?
  • Is long-term unexplained abscondence of an accused a relevant circumstance for determining guilt when supported by other evidence?
  • Does the fact that a single accused is charged require a different standard of proof for the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mukammal Shah vs Mst. Nasira and others2024 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sawab Khan vs The State and another2024 MLD 1682 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-01
  circumstantial evidencemurderexhumationburden of proofplea of alibiconcealment of crimecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the murders of his two wives under Section 302(b), Section 202 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, following the exhumation of their dead bodies from a single grave inside a room of the appellant's residential house. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant through an unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the dead bodies from his house on his pointation and matching firearm evidence, and whether the appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation for the unnatural deaths under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 warranted conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the circumstantial evidence conclusively proved the appellant's guilt, and his unnatural conduct and false plea of alibi further corroborated the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that where vulnerable dependents residing with an accused meet unnatural deaths within his house, the accused bears the burden under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to offer a reasonable explanation, failing which an adverse inference is drawn against him. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of dead bodies from a residential house under the control of the accused constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does the failure of an accused to offer a reasonable explanation regarding the unnatural death of a family member residing with him shift or strengthen the evidentiary burden under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a plea of alibi raised during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted when it is neither suggested to prosecution witnesses nor supported by attending circumstances?
  • Whether the omission of specific phrasing regarding multiple counts in a sentencing order vitiates the sentence when the text clearly implicates separate convictions for each deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• sarfaraz Khan vs Peshawar Development Authority through Director and 32024 PHC 288, 2025 CLC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-19Read full judgment →
• Said Gul vs The State & another2024 PHC 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-30Read full judgment →
• Said Bahadar vs Amin-Ur-Rehman and another2024 PCRLJ 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-03
  acid throwingmurderdelayed FIRbenefit of doubteyewitness credibilitymedical evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly throwing acid on the deceased, resulting in severe burns and subsequent death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of delayed FIR registration, the credibility of an alleged eyewitness whose name was omitted, the sufficiency of medical and recovery evidence, and the benefit of doubt arising from glaring contradictions in the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that unexplained delayed registration of the FIR, doubtful ocular evidence, planted recoveries, and material contradictions rendered the prosecution's case highly doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant of the charge, and dismissed the connected revision petition as infructuous. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish guilt through confidence-inspiring, direct, or corroborative evidence, and leaves unexplained delays and contradictions, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained and prolonged delay in the registration of an FIR creates a serious dent in the prosecution case?
  • Is the testimony of a belatedly introduced eyewitness reliable without corroboration in an unwitnessed crime?
  • Can medical evidence alone sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of trustworthy direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  • Whether recoveries of incriminating articles made in a suspicious manner can serve as valid corroborative evidence against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Saeed and others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Through Chief Secretary and others2024 PHC 334 · Peshawar High Court
  Medical Teaching InstitutionsBoard of Governorsdoctrine of pleasurecaretaker government mandateremoval without show causeconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions filed by members and chairpersons of the Board of Governors (BoGs) of various Medical Teaching Institutions (MTIs) challenging their removal or appointment across three distinct categories: those appointed by an elected government and removed by a caretaker setup (Category A), those appointed by a caretaker setup and removed by an elected government (Category B), and those appointed and removed by an elected government (Category C). The core legal questions concern the jurisdiction of the High Court versus the MTI Appellate Tribunal, the scope of the Chief Minister's pleasure under section 5(3) of the Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act 2015, and the mandate of a caretaker government to make appointments or terminations under the Elections Act 2017. The court held that simpliciter removal of BoG members without accusations of misconduct does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 5(7) of the 2015 Act, that the 'doctrine of pleasure' does not confer arbitrary removal powers without due process, and that caretaker governments lack the mandate to make major policy decisions or long-term appointments. Consequently, the court disposed of Category A and C petitions with remands for fresh consideration, and dismissed Category B petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal lies before the MTI Appellate Tribunal against the simpliciter removal of a member of the Board of Governors without any accusation or blame of misconduct?
  • Does the doctrine of pleasure under section 5(3) of the Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act 2015 empower the Chief Minister to remove a member of the Board of Governors without a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing?
  • What is the scope of authority of a caretaker government regarding making appointments and terminations in public offices under the Elections Act 2017?
  • Whether the High Court can exercise judicial review over the removal of members of the Board of Governors of Medical Teaching Institutions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Zada Sana Ullah vs Returning Officer and others2024 PHC 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Sahar Gul s/o Soor Gul, r/o Sadda Lower Kurram vs The State etc2024 PHC 216, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1036, 2025 YLR 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saeed-uz -Zaman and another vs Adil Shah and 03 others2024 PHC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• Saeed- Ullah vs The Returning Officer of PK-56 Mardan & 2 others2024 PHC 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-07Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ullah vs The Returning Officer of PK-56 District Mardan and others2024 PHC 12 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
• Saddam vs The State etc.2024 PHC 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1499 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-10
  post-arrest bailhonour killingfurther inquiryexhumation reportnon-compoundable offencecompromise in bail matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a petition filed by Saddam Hussain, accused of the murder of his sister, Mst. Asma, allegedly on the pretext of honour, in a case registered under sections 302/311/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the deceased was administered poison and later the death was staged as a suicide, with an exhumation report revealing a ligature mark. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence and the fact that the legal heirs had no objection to his release. The Court held that the case against the petitioner was one of further inquiry, as the determination of individual culpability among the inmates of the house required a full trial. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is non-compoundable, the lack of desire by the complainant party to prosecute, combined with the arguable nature of the case, justified the grant of bail. The Court admitted the petitioner to bail, noting that the evidentiary value of the prosecution's case remained a matter for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted in a non-compoundable offence if the complainant party is no longer willing to prosecute?
  • Does the existence of a ligature mark on a deceased's body automatically preclude the grant of bail to an accused in a murder case?
  • Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence and the specific role of the accused remains to be determined at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaf Ihsan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Parliament2024 YLR 2076 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-02Read full judgment →
• Saad Ullah Khan vs The State etc.2024 PHC 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
• Rustam son of Gul Nawaz and others vs The State etc2024 PHC 332 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• Riaz Khan etc vs Mst. Amina Beghum etc2024 PHC 370, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rahim Ullah and five others vs Mst. Yasmeen Bibi and four others2024 PHC 214, 2024 CLC 1966, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Rahim Khan and others vs Nasir Khan and others2024 CLC 707 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
• Rafiq vs The State2024 PHC 404 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• Qutab Khan vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 516 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-12
  criminal appealfirearm injuryapprehension at the spotmedical corroborationFSL reportmotiveminor discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 324, Section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 15 of the Arms Ordinance, for firing at and injuring the victim due to a motive involving suspicion of an illicit relationship. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge against the appellant through direct ocular evidence, medical corroboration, prompt apprehension at the scene, and positive forensic ballistics reports. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution established its case beyond a shadow of doubt through consistent testimonies of the complainant and the injured victim, immediate arrest of the appellant with the weapon of offence, and supporting medical and FSL evidence. The court laid down the principle that minor discrepancies and delays in recording statements due to the medical incapacity of an injured victim do not create a substantial dent in an otherwise consistent and corroborated prosecution case, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in recording the statement of an injured victim due to hospitalization and medical incapacity vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in ocular accounts are sufficient to discard an otherwise consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Can the recovery of the weapon of offence and positive forensic ballistics report substantiate a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does prompt arrest of the accused at the crime scene reinforce the trustworthiness of eyewitness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Ejaz vs Hizbullah2024 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan & another vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 PHC 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Qamar Hayat s/o Malik Matloob Khan vs Amir Mehmood Kiyani s/o Akhtar2024 PHC 128 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Niamat Ullah vs Izaz Khan2024 PHC 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-01Read full judgment →
• Principal Khyber Institute of Education vs University of Peshawar through Registrar and others2024 MLD 305 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Khan vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1118 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-03
  murder convictioneyewitness testimonyabsconsioncorroboratory evidencecriminal appealminor contradictionsappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial court judgment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony given the passage of time and the evidentiary value of the appellant's absconsion. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. Regarding the legal principles, the Court established that minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, arising due to the passage of time between the occurrence and the trial, are natural and do not warrant discarding the entire evidence if the witnesses remain consistent on material particulars. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that while absconsion alone is insufficient to sustain a capital conviction, it constitutes a significant corroboratory piece of evidence when supported by other reliable incriminating material, such as eyewitness testimony and forensic reports. The conviction was thus maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, arising from the passage of time, invalidate their entire account?
  • Is the factum of absconsion sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction on a capital charge?
  • Does the presence of natural and confidence-inspiring eyewitnesses require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco companu Limited through its general attorney vs Iftikhar2024 PHC 302, 2025 YLR 585 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-l nsaaf (PTl) Through its authorized person and others2024 PHC 1 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State2024 MLD 472 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →