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.

• Ishfaq Khan vs The State etc.2024 PHC 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• Ishaq and others vs The State etc.2024 PHC 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Irfan Saleem & others vs Returning Officer & others2024 PHC 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Iqbal ud Din s/o Zoor Talab Khan r/o Zarin Abad Nowshera. vs The State2024 PHC 100, 2024 YLR 1860 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-18
  criminal appealattempt to commit qatl-e-amdhurtalteration of convictionminor offenceArshTa'azirmedical evidenceocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 324 and Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the appellate court could alter the conviction to a minor offence under Section 238 and Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a specific charge. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt for the attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, but modified the sentence under Section 324 from five years to three years rigorous imprisonment. Furthermore, the court held that the injury established by the medical and ocular evidence fell within Shajjah-i-Hashimah under Section 337-A(iii) rather than Jaifah under Section 337-D PPC. Consequently, invoking Sections 238 and 423 Cr.P.C., the court altered the conviction accordingly, sentencing the appellant to pay Arsh without imprisonment by way of Ta'azir in the absence of prerequisites under Section 337-N(2) PPC. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court may alter a conviction for a major offence to a minor offence proved by evidence, and imprisonment by way of Ta'azir for hurt requires proof of statutory aggravating factors under Section 337-N(2).

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction for a major offence to a minor offence under Section 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no specific charge for the minor offence was framed?
  • Whether imprisonment by way of Ta'azir can be awarded for causing hurt under Section 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without fulfilling the requirements of Section 337-N(2) PPC?
  • What are the powers of an appellate court under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to alter the findings and nature of a sentence?
  • Does a prompt First Information Report corroborated by consistent ocular and medical evidence sufficiently establish an accused's guilt for firing at an injured complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Shah vs The State and another2024 PHC 106, 2024 PCRLJ 1708 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-19
  criminal appealmurderocular accountmedical evidence conflictbenefit of doubtimprovements in testimonymotiveweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 15 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question involves the appreciation of ocular testimony, the consistency between medical and ocular evidence, and the reliability of circumstantial evidence and motive in a capital charge. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the eye-witnesses made dishonest and mendacious improvements, their presence at the spot was doubtful, medical evidence conflicted with the ocular account regarding the number of weapons used, and recovery and motive were inconclusive. The key principles laid down are that deliberate and dishonest improvements cast serious doubt on the veracity of witnesses, a single loophole or conflict between medical and ocular evidence warrants giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, and motive is a double-edged weapon that can equally explain false implication.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deliberate and dishonest improvement in the statement of an eye-witness destroy their credibility on a capital charge?
  • What is the legal effect when medical evidence conflicts with the ocular account regarding the number of assailants and weapons used?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a motive when the ocular and medical evidence are found doubtful?
  • Does the non-specification of the weapon in the initial report create a reasonable doubt regarding the presence of the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhunkhwa through Secretary2024 PHC 388, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 330 · Peshawar High Court
  pensionary benefitscontractual servicequalifying serviceregularizationcivil service regulationsspecial bonusconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to count the petitioner's prior contractual service from 16.08.2002 until his regularization on 01.08.2013 towards pensionary benefits under Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations and Pension Rules. The core legal question was whether temporary or contractual service followed by regularization can be added to fulfill the mandatory minimum qualifying service required for pensionary benefits. The Court held that contractual service cannot be used to make up the deficiency in the minimum qualifying service of ten years independently required for pension; rather, contractual service can only be counted for calculating the quantum of pension once the qualifying service threshold is met independently. The Court also examined the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Education Foundation Financial Rules, 2008, holding that the petitioner was entitled to a special bonus under Rule 8 for completing ten years of contract service. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual service followed by regularization be added to complete the minimum qualifying service of ten years required for pensionary benefits?
  • What is the true scope and import of Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations regarding temporary and contractual service?
  • Whether an employee of the Frontier Education Foundation who completed ten years of contract service is entitled to a special bonus under Rule 8 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Education Foundation Financial Rules, 2008?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ullah vs The State2024 PCRLJ 652 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-25
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfalse implicationvideography of evidencemodern devicespolice investigationfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a petitioner accused of possessing 803 grams of methamphetamine, registered under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given allegations of police malice, false implication, and the lack of independent evidence supporting the recovery. The Court held that the petitioner’s case warranted further inquiry due to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery and the potential for false implication, thereby granting bail. The key principle laid down is that to ensure transparency and prevent the abuse of power by law enforcement in narcotics cases, the police and relevant narcotics control agencies must utilize modern technology, specifically videography, to document recovery proceedings. The Court mandated that such videography should be presented during bail hearings to establish the credibility of recoveries. Failure to provide such evidence, or a valid explanation for its absence, will negatively impact the prosecution's case and may lead courts to view the recovery with skepticism when considering bail applications.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of police to use videography during narcotics recovery proceedings affect the credibility of the prosecution's case in bail applications?
  • Can courts allow the production of evidence derived from modern devices or techniques under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the use of videography mandatory for law enforcement agencies in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa during the recovery of narcotics?
  • Under what circumstances can a court grant bail in narcotics cases involving the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed vs Muhammad Shabbir2024 PHC 208 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Hydro Electric Labour Union (PESCO), KPK through President vs Federation2024 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-24
  bifurcation of power companiesjudicial review of policyCouncil of Common InterestsNEPRA licensingpremature petitionadministrative restructuringPESCOHAZECO
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a registered trade union, challenged the government's decision to bifurcate the Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) and establish the Hazara Electric Supply Company (HAZECO), alleging political motivation and lack of feasibility. The core legal questions concerned whether such administrative bifurcation required fresh approval from the Council of Common Interests (CCI) and whether the court could interfere in this policy decision under its constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the challenge was premature because the new company had not yet been registered, nor had any distribution license been granted by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA). The court ruled that administrative restructuring and policy decisions fall within the executive domain and are not subject to judicial interference. Furthermore, the court clarified that once an overarching strategic plan for the unbundling of the Water and Power Development Authority is approved by the CCI, individual administrative bifurcations do not require repeated CCI approval.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court empowered to interfere in a policy decision regarding the administrative bifurcation of a state-owned power distribution company?
  • Does the creation of a new distribution company require fresh approval from the Council of Common Interests if the overarching unbundling plan was previously approved?
  • Can a writ petition challenging the formation of a new company be maintained before the company is registered or a distribution license is granted by NEPRA?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Zada vs Fazal Maula etc.2024 PHC 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• Hukman Shah and others vs The State etc.2024 PHC 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-14
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionlast seen evidencemurder referencedeath penalty commutationcriminal appealcompensation to heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction of two appellants for the murder of a taxi driver, robbery, and extortion. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions, and the application of the 'last seen' theory in the absence of direct ocular evidence. The Court upheld the convictions under Sections 302(b), 386, and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding the circumstantial chain—comprising the recovery of the body on the appellants' pointation, last-seen evidence, and corroborated judicial confessions—complete and unbroken. However, the Court acquitted the appellants under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, noting it applied to the receiver of stolen goods, not the robbers. While confirming the death sentence for the principal shooter, the Court commuted the death sentence of the co-appellant to life imprisonment, noting his role was limited to abetment. The Court affirmed that while circumstantial evidence must exclude all hypotheses of innocence, a retracted confession remains admissible if proven voluntary and corroborated by other evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is unbroken?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession admissible if it is found to be voluntary and corroborated by independent evidence?
  • Does the 'last seen' theory shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the deceased's fate?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to order compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Honda Atlas Cars Pakistan Limited and another vs Saleem Akhtar Farooq2024 CLC 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
• Hizbullah and another vs The State and another2024 PHC 238, 2024 MLD 1962, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1073 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• Hina Bibi vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and others2024 MLD 650 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Usman vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2024 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Bilal and another vs Mst. Asmat Bibi and 4 others2024 CLC 1772 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Ali Khan vs Govt. of KP thr. C.S. etc2024 PHC 218, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1501 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-23
  public service commissionfemale quotazonal allocationpurposive interpretationwrit jurisdictionmerit-based appointmentadministrative instructions
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the appointment of a respondent as an Assistant Public Prosecutor (BPS-17) by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. The petitioner, a candidate for the same post, contended that the respondent, having been shortlisted for an interview under the female quota due to a relaxed threshold, should have been appointed against a female quota seat rather than a General Quota seat (Zone-IV). The petitioner argued this deprived him of the Zone-IV seat. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Commission’s decision to place the respondent in the General Quota—based on her superior merit score—was legally sound. The Court established that the 10% female quota is intended to redress under-representation and should be construed purposively to allow female candidates to compete in the general cadre. Consequently, a candidate’s initial shortlisting method does not restrict their final placement if their merit qualifies them for a general seat, thereby maximizing the overall representation of women in government services.

  Questions settled

  • Can a female candidate shortlisted under a reserved quota be appointed against a general quota seat if her merit score qualifies her?
  • Does the 10% female quota in provincial services restrict high-performing female candidates to reserved seats only?
  • Does the method of shortlisting a candidate for an interview dictate their final placement in a recruitment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Khan vs The State and another2024 YLR 2111 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-16Read full judgment →
• Hamayoun Khan vs Mst. Naseeb Zeba and another2024 PHC 80, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Zahid and another vs Mst. Neelam Gul and another2024 PHC 68 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Mir Badshah and others vs District Officer, Revenue & Estate/Land2024 PHC 170, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Idrees vs Haji Nawab Khan Afridi etc.2024 PHC 272 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Aziz-ur-Rehman vs Fazal Wadood & others2024 PHC 298, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 186, 2025 CLC 644 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-27Read full judgment →
• Hafiza Bushra Gul vs University of Science & Technology, Bannu through its2022 PHC 446, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-04
  service matterselection boardconstitutional jurisdictionapprobation and reprobationinterview marksrules applicable at appointmentuniversity appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an unsuccessful candidate seeking a direction for her appointment as a Lecturer in Physics against a rival candidate after participating in the selection process conducted by the University of Science & Technology, Bannu. The core legal questions involved whether the rules in force at the time of the advertisement or those in force at the time of appointment were applicable, whether an unsuccessful candidate who participated without protest could challenge the selection process, and whether the High Court could substitute its own opinion for the subjective assessment of the Selection Board. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the rules in force on the date of appointment govern the selection, that a candidate who participates in a process and fails cannot subsequently challenge it under the principle of approbation and reprobation, and that the constitutional jurisdiction of the court does not extend to substituting the subjective evaluation or interviewing marks awarded by a selection panel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rules and conditions applicable to a selection process are those in force at the time of advertising the posts or those in force on the date of appointment?
  • Does a candidate who willingly participates in a selection process without protest lose the right to challenge the same process upon being unsuccessful?
  • Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction substitute its own opinion for the subjective assessment and marks awarded by an interview or selection board?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Zada vs Hazrat Gul and others2024 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Shah Ali & another vs The State & another2024 PHC 240 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The State2024 PCRLJ 603 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-05
  post-arrest bailkidnappingassault on womanprohibitory clausecriminal force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an FIR registered under sections 365-B, 354, 427, and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being accused of attempting to forcibly abduct a female medical student at a public BRT station, stripping her hijab, snatching her valuables, and committing related offenses. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail given the gravity of the allegations and the evidence connecting him to the crime. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's acts, including attempting to kidnap the victim and stripping her hijab in public view, brought the case within the prohibitory clause of offenses carrying capital punishment or severe imprisonment, leaving no scope for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established that heinous crimes involving public outrage and moral turpitude against women do not warrant the concession of bail, consequently dismissing the petition with directions for expeditious trial completion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused involved in attempting to abduct a woman and stripping her in public is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does an offense carrying capital punishment or severe imprisonment leave scope for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  • Can bail be granted in heinous crimes that attract strong public condemnation and fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Gui Lalai and five others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2024 PHC 156, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Global School and College of Science and Arts (Boys and Girls) vs BISE, Peshawar etc2024 PHC 380, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court
  constitutional petitioneducational boardexamination hallexcess of authoritydistrict administrationgood governancepublic service delivery
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from two incidents at an examination hall of a school during Secondary School Certificate examinations conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar. The core legal question was whether an Additional Assistant Commissioner from the District Administration possessed the legal authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Administration (Public Service Delivery & Good Governance) Act, 2020 or any other law to enter, expel students from, and seal an examination hall. The Peshawar High Court held that the Board is an autonomous body solely responsible for conducting examinations under its calendar and the relevant Board Act, and that executive magistrates lack the legal authority to interfere with the conduct of examinations or seal examination halls. The Court laid down the principle that the executive administration cannot usurp specialized statutory functions of autonomous educational boards under the guise of good governance or general public service delivery powers, and that public officials must exercise power strictly according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an officer of the District Administration have the legal authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Administration (Public Service Delivery & Good Governance) Act, 2020 to enter and seal an examination hall during board examinations?
  • Is the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education a 'Public Agency' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Administration (Public Service Delivery & Good Governance) Act, 2020?
  • Can executive authorities interfere with the conduct of examinations which fall under the exclusive domain of an autonomous educational board?
  • Does the concept of good governance allow state officials to flout established legal frameworks and procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Saeed vs The State and another2024 PHC 360 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-16
  qatl-i-amddeath penalty commutationevidential burdenQanun-e-Shahadat Orderocular evidencecriminal appealsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the qatl-i-amd of his wife. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt and whether the death penalty was just. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through ocular testimony and corroborating medical evidence. It affirmed that an FIR is not an exhaustive document, and the non-mentioning of eye-witnesses does not inherently invalidate the prosecution's case. Regarding the evidentiary burden, the Court laid down that under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an accused must provide an explanation for facts especially within their knowledge, such as the unnatural death of a spouse occurring inside their home, though the ultimate persuasive burden of proving guilt remains with the prosecution. Finding that the murder resulted from a sudden heat of passion rather than premeditation, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, emphasizing that sentencing must consider the specific surrounding circumstances of the case rather than adopting a mechanical approach.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to name eye-witnesses in an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the scope of the evidential burden placed on an accused under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a death occurs within their home?
  • Should a court adopt a mechanical approach when determining the appropriate sentence in a murder case?
  • Does the persuasive burden of proof shift to the accused when they fail to explain a fact especially within their knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Bahadar vs Akbar Bacha and others2024 CLC 734 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ghani Subhan, etc vs Saadullah, etc2024 PHC 402 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad vs Shah Jehan Badshah and another2024 MLD 684 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rehman vs Rehman Gul2024 PHC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-12Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rabi vs The State and another2024 PHC 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-09Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad Khan vs The State2024 PHC 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
• Fayaz & others vs Muhammad Haneef2024 PHC 294, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• Farzand Khan, etc vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs Department, etc2024 PHC 416 · Peshawar High Court
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantvested rightservice exigencyadministrative discretionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two writ petitions challenging the administrative repatriation of police constables to their parent department before the expiration of their designated deputation periods at the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE). The core legal question is whether a civil servant on deputation possesses a vested right to serve the full stipulated duration of their deputation, thereby rendering premature repatriation unlawful. The Court held that deputation is a temporary administrative arrangement driven by the exigencies of service and the operational needs of the borrowing department, rather than the personal convenience of the employee. Consequently, the Court ruled that a deputationist holds no vested right to remain in a borrowing department for any specific period and may be repatriated at any time by the competent authority. The Court affirmed that such repatriation does not require prior notice, nor does it violate principles of natural justice, as the decision rests entirely within the administrative discretion of the departments involved. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions, finding no infringement of any fundamental or legal right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to complete the full stipulated period of their deputation?
  • Can a borrowing department repatriate a deputationist to their parent department before the expiry of the deputation period?
  • Is the prior issuance of a show-cause notice required before the repatriation of a civil servant from a deputation post?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to interfere with the administrative decision to repatriate a deputationist?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir ur Rehman vs Hussain Ahmad2024 PHC 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-28
  criminal appealappeal against acquittalmurderburn injuriesburden of proofmedical evidencepresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant under Section 417(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a case relating to the unnatural death of his wife due to burn injuries, registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding allegations of burning through kerosene oil, and whether the trial court's acquittal order warranted interference. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the crime, that the accused had discharged the burden under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 by immediately taking the victim to hospitals and reporting the incident, and that medical discrepancies regarding the cause of burns could not override the lack of incriminating evidence. The key principle laid down is that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and appellate courts will not interfere unless the trial court's assessment is perverse or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • How does the initial presumption of innocence get affected by an acquittal recorded by a trial court?
  • Can a belated and unsubstantiated medical report regarding the cause of burn injuries override the lack of direct incriminating evidence?
  • Did the accused successfully discharge the burden of explanation under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Hussain vs The State2024 PHC 410 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-16Read full judgment →
• Essa Khan & others vs Said Alam & others2024 PHC 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Eid Rehman vs SHO PS Cantt & others2024 PHC 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• East West Insurance Co. Ltd. etc vs Aurangzeb etc2024 PHC 348, 2025 CLD 527 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zahir & Others vs Hazara University & others2024 PHC 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shah Alam Khan, Professor & Chairman Department of Plant2024 PHC 144 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Noman Siddiqui & 04 others vs Govt: of K.P.K & others2024 PHC 126, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1087 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-27
  zonal allocation formulapublic service commissionconstitutional petitionveternary officersquota systembackward areasmerit position
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the application of the "Zonal Allocation Formula" by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission in the recruitment of Veterinary Officers (BPS-17). The petitioners, holding Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degrees and belonging to Zone-3, argued that candidates from their zone possessing higher merit scores should have been accommodated on open merit seats rather than being adjusted against zonal quotas, thereby depriving them of appointment. The core legal question was whether the Zonal Allocation Formula and its application infringe upon fundamental rights or violate constitutional principles. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Zonal Allocation Formula is based on a reasonable classification aimed at ensuring equitable distribution of vacancies and protecting the rights of backward areas, as previously affirmed by the Supreme Court and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the zonal allocation system in public recruitment is a valid mechanism for regional representation and does not violate constitutional provisions regarding equality and merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Zonal Allocation Formula used by the Public Service Commission is repugnant to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the application of the zonal allocation system infringe upon the rights of more meritorious candidates in public service appointments?
  • Whether the government has the authority to implement a zonal allocation quota to uplift people of backward areas in public sector employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muather Gul vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health2024 PHC 220, 2025 MLD 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aurangzeb Khan and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 PHC 320, 2025 CLC 110, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-22
  caretaker governmentpolicy decisionvice chancellor appointmentacademic search committeeuniversities actwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the decision of the Provincial Cabinet to scrap the appointment process of Vice Chancellors for public sector universities and re-advertise the posts. The core legal question was whether the substitution of resigned members of the Academic Search Committee by the caretaker provincial government violated the restrictions on major policy decisions under Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, thereby vitiating the entire selection process. The Peshawar High Court held that the initial selection process was a policy decision of the elected government, and the mere substitution of resigned members by the caretaker setup to carry forward routine day-to-day governance did not constitute a major policy decision under Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017. The court laid down the principle that filling vacant statutory positions by continuing an already initiated process does not violate the mandate of a caretaker government.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the substitution of members of the Academic Search Committee by a caretaker government violates Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Does the continuation and completion of a selection process initiated by a prior elected government fall within the day-to-day functions of a caretaker government?
  • Can a newly elected provincial government lawfully scrap an ongoing appointment process for university Vice Chancellors on the ground that members of the search committee were substituted during the caretaker setup?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs M/s.PTCL 2024 CL. 243, 2024 PTD 1174 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs M/s.PTCL 2024 CL. 37 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar Zone vs M/s Maneri International2023 PHC 324, 2024 PTD 776 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar vs Messrs Al Khyber Tea and Food and 2 others2024 PTD 1095 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Corporate Zone, Peshawar vs M/s2024 PHC 246, PTCL 2024 CL. 677 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Collectorate of Customs (Enforcement), Custom2024 PTD 747 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Peshawar vs Messrs Allied2024 PTD 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
• Collector Customs, Peshawar vs Syed Aftab-ul-Hassan2024 PHC 304 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
• Collector Customs & another vs M/s Chiniot Enterprises (Pvt) Limited2024 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
• Capt. (Rtd) Feroz Shah vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary2024 PHC 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-29
  civil service promotionCentral Selection BoardsupersessionPerformance Evaluation Reportsjudicial reviewBPS-21 promotionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil servant challenging multiple decisions of the Central Selection Board (CSB) recommending his supersession for promotion to BPS-21. The core legal question was whether the CSB’s evaluation process, specifically the repeated use of the same Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for reconsideration after an initial supersession, complied with the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019. The Court dismissed the challenges to the earlier CSB decisions, finding no procedural illegality. However, regarding the most recent decision, the Court held that the CSB acted contrary to Rule 10(5) of the Rules, 2019, by evaluating the petitioner on the same PERs used in a previous supersession, rather than requiring the mandatory new full year's PER. Consequently, the supersession was declared unlawful and converted into a deferment. The Court affirmed the principle that while promotion is not a vested right and courts should not substitute their evaluation for that of the competent body, administrative decisions must strictly adhere to statutory procedures, and supersession requires compliance with mandatory performance reporting requirements before reconsideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court substitute its own evaluation for that of the Central Selection Board regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion?
  • Is a civil servant who has been superseded for promotion eligible for reconsideration without earning a new Performance Evaluation Report for a full year?
  • Does the Central Selection Board have the authority to evaluate a civil servant for promotion using the same Performance Evaluation Reports that were previously used for a prior supersession decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Biland Khan vs Shahram Khan and others2024 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Bazed Khan and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others2024 PLD Peshawar 176 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• Benazira Bibi vs The State etc2024 PHC 306, 2025 PLD Peshawar 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-10Read full judgment →
• Balqiaz Ali Shah alias Atta vs Wresham Gul & others2024 PHC 206, 2025 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Babar Azeem Afridi vs Election Commission of Pakistan through its2024 PHC 40 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Babar Azeem Afridi vs Election Commission of Pakistan and 4 others2024 PHC 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
• Azam Shah vs The State etc.2024 PHC 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Maqsood vs KP Public Service Commission & others2024 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-26Read full judgment →
• Ayab Khan and other vs Mst. Imrania and others2024 PHC 286, 2025 CLC 691 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-30Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan & others vs Collector Land Acquisition & others2024 PHC 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
• Atta-Ur-Rehman vs Mst. Ghulam Bibi and others2024 CLC 1705 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 MLD 1282 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Ateeq Ur Rehman vs Election Commission of Pakistan through the Chief2024 PHC 38 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aslam Khan vs The State2024 PHC 22, 2024 YLR 2467 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
• Askar Ali vs The State and another2024 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-27
  criminal appealsentencing discretioncapital punishmentremandself-defensetrial court judgmentprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(c) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in awarding a lesser sentence under Section 302(c) without providing cogent reasons, and whether it improperly inferred a plea of self-defense that the appellant had not raised. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court's judgment was unsustainable because it failed to comply with Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates that a court must state reasons when awarding a sentence other than death for a capital offense. Furthermore, the court found the trial judge erred by introducing a self-defense theory not pleaded by the accused. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh judgment based on the evidence, strictly adhering to the requirements of Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle established is that trial courts must provide explicit, convincing reasons for deviating from standard sentencing norms in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to provide reasons when awarding a sentence other than death for an offense punishable by death?
  • Can a trial court base its judgment on a plea of self-defense that was never raised by the accused during the trial?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to follow the reports of an investigating officer over the evidence produced before it during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ullah etc vs Mst. Gulzara Bibi etc2024 PHC 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-26Read full judgment →
• Asfandyar Khan vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2024 PHC 268 · Peshawar High Court
  delegated legislationretrospective operationcivil servantappointment quotaprospective applicationsubordinate legislationvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the respondent department to appoint the petitioner to a junior clerk position under the quota for children of incapacitated civil servants. The petitioner's father retired on medical grounds in 1997, whereas the relevant amendment to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which introduced this quota, was notified in 2016. The core legal question was whether this delegated legislation operated retrospectively to cover employees who retired before the amendment. The Court held that the amendment operates only prospectively. The ratio of the decision is that delegated legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute expressly confers such power. Examining Section 26 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, the Court found no such authorization. Consequently, the Court affirmed that subordinate legislation is limited in scope and cannot retroactively alter vested rights or apply to events predating its enactment. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner's father retired prior to the amendment's notification, rendering the petitioner ineligible for the benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Can delegated legislation be given retrospective effect in the absence of express authorization in the parent statute?
  • Does an amendment to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, regarding employment quotas for children of incapacitated civil servants, apply retrospectively?
  • Does the power to make rules under Section 26 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, include the power to legislate retrospectively?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Qaiser vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Through Chief2024 PHC 26 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asad Khan vs The State2024 PHC 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs The State and others2024 MLD 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17
  qatl-i-amdocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtchain of custodyforensic science laboratorycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mehdi Hassan. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular testimony, the consistency of the prosecution's narrative with medical evidence, and the validity of forensic recoveries. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements, their testimony contradicted medical evidence regarding the firing angle, and the chain of custody for forensic evidence was broken. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principles laid down are that in cases involving a single accused, courts must rigorously scrutinize evidence rather than assuming substitution is rare; that once the ocular account is disbelieved, corroborative evidence like recoveries cannot sustain a capital conviction; and that medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's version of the occurrence significantly undermines the credibility of eye-witness testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's version of the firing angle undermine the credibility of eye-witnesses?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained on recovery evidence alone if the ocular account is disbelieved?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the safe custody of crime articles sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to rely on positive forensic reports?
  • Should a trial court assume that substitution of a single accused is a rare phenomenon without critically evaluating the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Saeed vs Dr. Azhar Khan Jadoon and others2024 PHC 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan and others vs Bahadar Jan and others2024 PHC 82, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali and others vs Mst. Saeeda Bibi and others2024 PHC 236, 2025 CLC 506 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-24Read full judgment →
• Amjid Ali Ihc, Incharge Police Post Shahab Khel Badh Ber Peshawar. vs The State etc2024 PHC 104, 2024 PCRLJ 1803 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-22
  contempt of courtsubordinate courts jurisdictionindirect contemptillegal detentionhabeas corpuscriminal procedurepolice official
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Incharge Police Post, challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for allegedly flouting a court order by restraining a court bailiff from inspecting the police post. The core legal question revolved around the jurisdiction of subordinate courts to try contempt of court offences and the correct procedure to be adopted. The Peshawar High Court held that offences under the Contempt of Court Ordinance are triable exclusively by superior courts, except for contempt punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code which may be dealt with by subordinate courts following the specific procedures laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court ruled that since the alleged act constituted an indirect contempt committed outside the court premises, it did not fall under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code, rendering the trial court's summary conviction illegal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back for a re-decision in accordance with the correct legal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Do subordinate courts possess the jurisdiction to try offences of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Ordinance?
  • What is the correct procedure for subordinate courts to follow when dealing with contempt of court or offences against public justice under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does an indirect contempt committed outside the physical presence of the court fall within the ambit of Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can a trial court impose a sentence of imprisonment under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code beyond the prescribed fine?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Khan vs Shah Marood and others2024 PHC 356, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• Ameer Badshah vs The State and another2024 YLR 37 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
• Amanullah etc. vs The State etc.2024 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-31
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencechance witnessforensic science laboratoryadverse inferencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal appeal filed by convicts challenging their convictions and life sentences under Sections 302(b), 324, 452, 337-A(ii), 337-D, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of ocular testimony, identification of assailants in night-time darkness without a disclosed light source, delayed and joint dispatch of crime empties and recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the withholding of key eyewitnesses. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the enhancement revision as infructuous. The Court held that the presence of alleged eyewitnesses was unnatural and unverified, while failure to produce primary witnesses attracted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, sending crime empties together with weapons to the FSL destroyed the report's evidentiary value, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory together with the recovered weapon destroy their evidentiary value?
  • Can an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 be drawn when the prosecution withholds key material eyewitnesses?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Amani Rome vs The State & 02 others2024 PHC 250, 2025 PCRLJ 189 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-21
  rapeminor victimjudicial confessionchild protectionrationality testcustodial torturecorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the rape of a minor child. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the victim's testimony, the voluntariness of the appellant's judicial confession, and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the victim's consistent testimony, which passed a rationality test, corroborated by medical evidence confirming recent forceful intercourse, and a voluntary judicial confession. The Court rejected the defense's claims of tutoring or duress regarding the victim's testimony and found no merit in the appellant's belated allegations of custodial torture. The principle laid down is that while a minor's testimony must be scrutinized for potential influence, it remains credible if it is natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical and other evidence; furthermore, a judicial confession, once proven voluntary and corroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the accused later resiles from it.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession admissible and sufficient for conviction if the accused later resiles from it during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the admission by a minor victim that family members instructed her to testify render her evidence inadmissible as 'tutored'?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained primarily on the testimony of a minor victim if corroborated by medical evidence, even if the victim did not immediately disclose the specific act of rape to her parents?
  • What is the legal effect of a belated allegation of custodial torture made by an accused during a trial when no such complaint was raised at the time of the judicial confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Bahadur vs Khan Bahadur etc2024 PHC 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Amin Khan Gandapur vs Tariq Mehmood, Returning Officer, Na-44, D.I.Khan-I & others2024 PHC 44 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Amin Khan Gandapur vs Muhammad Nadir, Returning Officer, PK-113, D.I.Khan-III & others2024 PHC 46 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Amin Khan Gandapur vs Muhammad Fasih Ishaq Abbasi, Returning2024 PHC 48 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aleem Ullah son of Said Rahman vs Khan Pervez & others2024 PHC 228, 2025 PCRLJ 690 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-27
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtunseen occurrencecircumstantial evidencelast-seen evidenceburden of proofcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a murder case involving FIR No. 202 dated 31.08.2018. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitness accounts, and whether the medical, last-seen, and circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated the charges. The Peshawar High Court held that the occurrence was entirely unseen and un-witnessed, that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof, and that joint recoveries and unproven motives cannot substitute for substantive evidence. The court reaffirmed that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, upholding the trial court's judgment extending the benefit of the doubt to the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to establish direct or ocular evidence renders circumstantial and medical evidence insufficient for conviction?
  • Does the shifting of the burden of proof under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 absolve the prosecution from discharging its initial onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can corroborative evidence such as recoveries of weapons sustain a conviction in the absence of substantive primary evidence?
  • Is a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Akram Khan Durrani vs Malik Adnan Khan and others2024 PHC 312, 2025 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Akmal Khan and others vs Mst. Noorin and others2024 PHC 392, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-13Read full judgment →
• Akbar Shah and others vs Ayub Khan and others2024 PHC 342 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-22Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan and others vs Sher Rehman and others2024 PHC 186, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 156, 2025 CLC 365 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Husain vs The State & another2024 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-12
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdying declarationadverse inferenceabscondencemurder trialappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondent accused in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal. The Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies: the complainant’s claim of escaping unhurt while standing in the line of fire was implausible; there were irreconcilable discrepancies in the time of death between the medical evidence and witness statements; and the prosecution failed to produce a key eyewitness, warranting an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the alleged telephonic dying declaration was deemed unreliable, and the motive remained unproven. Reaffirming established jurisprudence, the Court held that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace. Abscondence alone was held insufficient to prove guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine a material witness warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is abscondence alone sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused person?
  • What is the legal consequence of a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a telephonic call be relied upon as a dying declaration if the prosecution fails to establish the victim's capacity to speak or the authenticity of the call?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2024 PHC 382 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abid Sherani vs Tahir Sherani through legal heirs & others2022 PHC 286, 2024 CLC 333 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Secretary Local Govt. etc.2024 PHC 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Khan vs Shafqat Ali Khan & 02 others2022 PHC 148, 2024 YLR 2366 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →