Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Abdullah vs The State2024 PHC 230, 2025 PCRLJ 220 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, while the connected criminal revision seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions concern the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the impact of the FIR's contents, the corroborative value of medical evidence and forensic reports, and whether the trial court correctly assessed the motive and sentencing. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular accounts, which were corroborated by medical evidence and forensic analysis of weapon empties. The Court reaffirmed that related witnesses are not inherently interested witnesses and can be natural witnesses if the incident occurred in their presence. Furthermore, the Court held that the prompt reporting of the crime negated the possibility of deliberation. Regarding the revision, the Court found that the uncertainty surrounding the specific circumstances leading to the divorce and the motive justified the trial court's decision to impose life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. The appeal and revision were both dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a related witness be considered a natural witness in a murder case?
- Does the failure to mention minute details in an FIR invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is unexplained abscondance of an accused sufficient to prove guilt in a criminal trial?
- Under what circumstances can a court refuse to enhance a sentence in a criminal revision?
- Abdul Saboor vs Dr. Jamil ur Rehman & others2024 PHC 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through ,Secretary2023 PHC 259, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 58, 2024 YLR 982 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
- Abbas Khan vs The Director General, National Database and Registration2024 PLC (C.S.) 439 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by an Assistant Superintendent of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), challenging the composition of a departmental inquiry committee initiated against him following an altercation with a Deputy Director. The petitioner sought a direction from the Court to constitute a fresh inquiry committee, alleging bias because the committee members were subordinates of the respondent who initiated the proceedings and because he apprehended the involvement of the Deputy Director with whom he had the altercation. The Court examined the record and found that the Deputy Director in question was not a member of the inquiry committee. Furthermore, the Court held that departmental inquiries must necessarily be conducted by officials within the same department, and the mere fact that committee members are subordinates of the authority initiating the proceedings does not invalidate the inquiry. Finding no merit in the petitioner's apprehension of bias, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing that departmental disciplinary inquiries are not vitiated solely because the inquiry officers are subordinates of the appointing authority.
Questions settled- Can a departmental inquiry committee be challenged solely on the ground that its members are subordinates of the authority initiating the disciplinary proceedings?
- Is a departmental inquiry vitiated if the official involved in the underlying altercation is not a member of the inquiry committee?
- Does the Court have the authority to interfere in the composition of a departmental inquiry committee absent evidence of actual bias?
- Zulfiqar Additional SHO, Police Station Jamrud at Jamrud District Khyber2023 PCRLJ 608 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by law enforcement personnel challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Khyber acting as a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the registration of an FIR was ordered against the petitioners. The core legal question involved was whether the Justice of Peace was justified in ordering the registration of a criminal case against law enforcement officials who seized fake foreign currency from an individual in the discharge of their official duties at a border check post. The Peshawar High Court held that since the petitioners acted in the line of duty without any apparent mala fide, personal vendetta, or ill-will, and the seized currency was found to be fake upon examination, the order passed by the Justice of Peace was illegal and not based on proper appraisal of law. The court laid down the principle that law enforcement officials acting bona fide in the national interest during the discharge of official duties cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings through an order under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without valid grounds.
Questions settled- Whether a Justice of Peace is justified in ordering the registration of an FIR against law enforcement personnel acting in the discharge of their official duties?
- Can police officials be subjected to criminal proceedings under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of mala fide or personal vendetta?
- Whether the seizure of fake currency by law enforcement agencies at a border check post constitutes a cognizable offence warranting criminal investigation against the officials?
- Zubair Ali vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
- Zia-ur-Rehman vs The State2023 PHC 125 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
- Zer Ajam Khan vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2023 PHC 183, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 283 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a Drawing Master seeking to challenge the seniority list prepared by the Education Department, arguing that seniority should be determined by the date of first appointment rather than the date of taking charge. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a dispute concerning the seniority of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar on such matters. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute regarding seniority pertains to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Relying on Article 212 of the Constitution, the Court affirmed that the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, which fall within the exclusive domain of the relevant Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that Article 212 of the Constitution creates an express constitutional mandate that precludes High Courts from entertaining petitions concerning the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, as such matters must be adjudicated by the appropriate Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a dispute regarding the seniority of a civil servant?
- Are matters relating to the seniority of a civil servant considered part of the terms and conditions of service?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
- Zeeshan Hafeez vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1401 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a petition filed by Zeeshan Hafeez seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 365 registered under sections 279 and 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Havelian, District Abbottabad, following a fatal traffic accident. The core legal question is whether an offence punishable under section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether pre-trial incarceration is justified when the primary punishment prescribed is Diyat rather than imprisonment. The court held that section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it does not entail a punishment of imprisonment, and continued incarceration during trial would amount to pre-trial punishment and double jeopardy since pre-sentence custody cannot be set off under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against a Diyat liability. The court laid down the principle that an accused charged with an offence punishable solely by Diyat is ordinarily entitled to bail as of right, as keeping them in confinement during trial serves no legal purpose.
Questions settled- Does an offence of qatl-bis-sabab punishable under section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused charged under section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to post-arrest bail as of right?
- Can the period of under-trial incarceration be adjusted against the payment of Diyat under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Zeeshan Afzal vs Qaiser Ali and others2023 PLD Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
- Zarshad vs The State & another2023 PHC 203, 2024 PCRLJ 546 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of ocular testimony, the validity of the FIR, and the sufficiency of evidence in the presence of conflicting medical reports and exaggerated accusations. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. It found that the eyewitnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose presence was not satisfactorily explained, and the complainant’s condition at the time of the FIR raised doubts about his capacity to report the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the prosecution failed to prove the motive or reconcile the number of accused persons with the injuries sustained. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is unreliable and conflicts with medical evidence, and where the prosecution exaggerates the number of accused, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, rendering abscondence insufficient for conviction.
Questions settled- Can abscondence of an accused be sufficient ground for conviction in the absence of strong substantive evidence?
- Does the failure of a scribe to obtain a medical certificate regarding the fitness of an injured complainant to report an FIR create doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Is the testimony of a chance witness acceptable without a satisfactory explanation of their presence at the scene of the crime?
- What is the legal consequence when medical evidence conflicts with the ocular account provided by witnesses?
- Zarghoon Shah vs The State etc2023 PHC 309 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
- Zarai Taraqiyati Bank Limited through Incharge, Legal Litigation Unit, Peshawar vs Muzaffar Khan2023 CLD 1339 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
- Zamurad Khan vs Ghulam Rabani and 3 others2023 MLD 733 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
- Zamin Ullah vs The State and another2023 PHC 400 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-14Read full judgment →
- Zaidar Khan and others vs Fazal Karim and others2023 YLR 838 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
- Zaib Noor & others vs Adjutant General Pay and Pension Branch, GHQ2023 PHC 92, 2024 YLR 257 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
- Zahoor son of Atlas Khan, r/o Bhaddni, Balu Akbarpura, District Nowshera.2023 PHC 430 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Zahid Khan vs The State2023 PCRLJ 367 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentences passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-1, Peshawar, under sections 387, 506, 419, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 25-D of the Telegraph Act 1885, and Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The prosecution's case rested on alleged threatening phone calls demanding extortion (Bhatta) under the guise of donations for widows and orphans. The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence linking the SIM card used for the calls to the appellant. Furthermore, the star witnesses, including the complainant, did not identify the appellant as the caller and admitted that the caller requested donations rather than extortion. Finding material contradictions and a lack of connection between the appellant and the alleged offences, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for extortion under Section 387 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on call data records without proving the ownership or exclusive use of the SIM card by the accused?
- Whether a request for donations for widows and orphans, in the absence of evidence showing it was a cover for extortion, can be treated as a demand for Bhatta?
- Does the failure of the complainant and key witnesses to identify the accused as the caller create a reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal?
- Zafran s/o Kitab Khan, r/o Shahkas Jamrud District Khyber vs The State etc2023 PHC 592, 2024 YLR 2193 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs The State and another2023 YLR 1942 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the possession of a large quantity of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the recovered contraband from the point of seizure to the chemical laboratory. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove this chain, as key witnesses—specifically the official responsible for transporting the samples to the police station and the Moharrir who received them—were not produced. Consequently, the court ruled that the chemical examiner's report was unreliable. The court emphasized that the chain of custody, encompassing seizure, storage, and transmission, must be secure and indisputable to justify a conviction. Any break in this chain creates reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a failure to produce the Moharrir who handled the contraband samples create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
- Is the chemical examiner's report admissible if the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of samples from the place of recovery to the laboratory?
- What is the legal consequence of a break in the chain of custody in narcotics cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Zabit Khan vs The State2023 YLR 1399 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of narcotics from a motorcar. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution evidence regarding the search and recovery, the chain of custody of the samples, and whether the Forensic Science Laboratory report complied with the mandatory requirements regarding test protocols. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a safe and unimpeachable chain of custody, and that the FSL report lacked the requisite test protocols under Rule 6 of the Government Analysts Rules, 2001, rendering it inconclusive and devoid of evidentiary value. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, courts must focus on the quality of evidence rather than the quantity of the contraband involved. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
Questions settled- Does an FSL report lacking test protocols lose its evidentiary value under Rule 6 of the Government Analysts Rules, 2001?
- Whether contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the mode and manner of recovery create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Is the prosecution required to prove a secure and unbroken chain of custody for the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the laboratory?
- Yousaf Ali vs Chief Executive, Water and Sanitation Services, Peshawar and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1131 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, seeking to declare the petitioner as the successful candidate for the post of Manager Communication and Media Management in Water and Sanitation Services Peshawar, and to set aside the selection of respondent No. 3. The core legal question involved the interference of the High Court in the appointment and selection process of a candidate based on allegations of mala fide and lesser marks in the interview. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner stood at serial No. 4 of the final merit list with 70 marks, whereas respondent No. 3 topped the list with 73 marks, and that the selection committee was the best judge to evaluate candidates. The Court laid down the principle that in the absence of tangible evidence of mala fide, the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve factual controversies or to substitute the opinion of the selection committee with that of the court. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with the selection process of a candidate in its constitutional jurisdiction when no tangible evidence of mala fide is established?
- Whether the court can substitute its own opinion for that of an interview committee regarding the evaluation and potential of candidates?
- Does a disputed factual controversy regarding the award of interview marks warrant interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Yasir Khan and another vs The State through Advocate-General, Khyber2023 PCRLJ 577 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Peshawar, which rejected the petitioners' application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners argued that a compromise reached during the pre-arrest bail stage should be binding and sufficient for acquittal at the trial stage. The core legal question was whether a compromise effected during bail proceedings is automatically effective for acquittal during the trial. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in 'Tariq Mehmood v. Naseer Ahmad and others' (PLD 2016 SC 347), held that while offences under Section 345(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be compounded without court intervention, offences under Section 345(2) require the permission of the trial court where the prosecution is pending. The Court concluded that a compromise at the bail stage does not automatically mandate acquittal at trial, especially when the complainant only consented to the bail and the offences involved require judicial permission for compounding. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a compromise effected at the pre-arrest bail stage be automatically used for acquittal during the trial?
- Does a compromise in an offence under Section 345(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the permission of the trial court?
- Is a compromise in an offence under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid without the permission of the trial court where the prosecution is pending?
- Yasir Iqbal vs The State and another2023 MLD 714 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Model Criminal Trial Court, Peshawar, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the stabbing death of a fellow passenger in a public vehicle. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the offense fell under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court found that the prosecution proved ocular and medical evidence, but the record established that the parties were unknown to each other and the incident occurred without premeditation or pre-existing enmity, triggered suddenly under the heat of passion following a minor quarrel over opening a window pane. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, converting the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The Court held that an act committed without premeditation at the spur of the moment in the heat of passion attracts Section 302(c), and its magnitude cannot be measured in a golden scale merely because multiple injuries were inflicted.
Questions settled- Whether a murder committed without premeditation and under the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel between strangers falls under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the infliction of multiple injuries on vital parts of the victim automatically prevent an offense from being categorized under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when committed under the heat of passion?
- Can a court examine an accused's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to ascertain the root cause of an incident and do complete justice?
- Wasim vs The State etc2023 PHC 205, 2024 YLR 1065 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and under the Arms Ordinance, following an incident where the deceased was shot dead inside the house of the complainant. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the sole eyewitness who was declared hostile, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic recovery of the crime weapon and empties, and the effect of an unproved motive. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the sole eyewitness resiled, the recovery of the weapon suffered from unexplained delay without proof of safe custody, and the alleged motive remained unproved. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of a hostile witness requires strong independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and unexplained delays in sending crime empties and weapons for forensic analysis render the recovery inadmissible.
Questions settled- Can the sole statement of a hostile witness be relied upon for conviction without strong independent corroboration?
- Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties and weapons to the forensic laboratory render the recovery inadmissible?
- What is the effect on the prosecution case when the alleged motive behind a murder remains unproved?
- Whether twisted facts and suppression of material circumstances by the prosecution entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Waheed Gul son of Abid Shah vs Rokhan Shah & others2023 PHC 235, 2024 PCRLJ 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged an acquittal order passed by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, a complainant in a case involving criminal intimidation and assault, contended that the trial court prematurely acquitted the respondents without recording the testimonies of essential prosecution witnesses, specifically the medical officer and the Investigating Officer. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked Section 249-A Cr.P.C. to terminate the proceedings before the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court's action was unsustainable, as it bypassed the due process requirements mandated by Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court established that Section 249-A Cr.P.C. should not be used to dispose of cases on merits when there is a reasonable probability of conviction. Consequently, the acquittal order was set aside, and the case was remanded for trial on merits, with a directive to ensure the attendance of necessary witnesses. The judgment reinforces that courts must exhaust legal methods to procure evidence before entertaining applications for premature acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a trial court invoke Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused before recording the testimony of essential prosecution witnesses?
- Does the premature acquittal of an accused without exhausting the process of summoning witnesses violate the right to due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is a trial court permitted to decide a criminal case on merits via an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is a probability of conviction?
- Umer Khan & others vs Member Board of Revenue & others2023 PHC 277, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-27Read full judgment →
- Umer Farooq vs The State & another2023 PHC 470 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
- Umar Ali vs The State etc2023 PHC 311 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-07Read full judgment →
- Umair Khan vs Aamir Mehfroz-ur-Rehman & others2023 PHC 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-09Read full judgment →
- Umair Khan vs Aamir Mehfooz-Ur-Rehman and 10 others2023 PLD Peshawar 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-09Read full judgment →
- Ubaid-ur-Rehman son of Molvi Hazrat Yousaf vs Government of KPK2023 PHC 147, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to respondents to remove discrepancies in the petitioner's Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) address entries and to appoint him as a Primary School Teacher (PST) (BPS-12) in Union Council Chattar Plain, District Mansehra. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who obtained a new CNIC reflecting a different permanent address after the advertisement's cut-off date, was eligible for appointment against a quota reserved for that specific Union Council. The Court held that the petitioner was ineligible, noting that the relevant statutory criteria require candidates to belong to the Union Council of their permanent residence as mentioned in their CNIC and domicile at the time of application. Because the petitioner's previous CNIC showed a different address and his updated documents were procured after the prescribed cut-off date, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that eligibility for recruitment against Union Council-specific quotas is strictly determined by the permanent address recorded in official documents as of the advertisement's cut-off date.
Questions settled- Can a candidate claim eligibility for a Union Council-specific post based on a CNIC address updated after the advertisement's cut-off date?
- Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lectures, Instructors, and Doctors, Regulatory Act, 2011 require candidates to belong to the Union Council of their permanent residence as mentioned in their CNIC?
- Is a petitioner entitled to appointment as a Primary School Teacher if their permanent address at the time of the application's closing date does not match the required Union Council quota?
- Ubaid Ullah and others vs Sarfaraz Khan and another2023 PHC 402, 2024 YLR 2597 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-18Read full judgment →
- Ubaid Khan son of Misal Khan vs The State through A.A.G2023 PHC 496, 2024 PCRLJ 1153 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ubaid Khan, for the murder of his mother. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by family members residing in the same house and whether the sentence imposed was proportionate given the circumstances of the offense. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account of the inmates credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. However, the Court held that because the offense occurred at the spur of the moment without premeditation, and considering the appellant’s subsequent conduct in attempting to aid the victim, the sentence of life imprisonment was excessive. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced the sentence to ten years imprisonment. The principle established is that lack of premeditation and the "spur of the moment" nature of an offense warrant a reduction in sentence.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of family members residing in the same house be considered reliable ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- Does the absence of premeditation and the occurrence of a crime at the 'spur of the moment' justify a reduction in sentence from life imprisonment to a fixed term?
- Is medical evidence considered confirmatory or primary in the presence of reliable ocular testimony?
- Toti Rahman and 6 others vs The State and 8 others2023 YLR 2534 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
- Toti Rahman & 06 others vs The State & 08 others2023 PHC 111 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
- TMO Haripur vs Malik Abdul Rahim2023 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
- TMA Haripur vs Raja Khan etc2023 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-27Read full judgment →
- The State vs Waqar Ahmad and others2023 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
- The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary2023 PHC 143 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-27Read full judgment →
- The District Collector, Charsadda and others vs Mehraban Shah and others2023 PHC 454 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- The Deputy Commissioner Bajaur and others vs Mst. Mahi Sultan and another2023 PHC 213 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Abbottabad and another vs Messrs Saim Traders and another2023 PTD 763 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
- Telenor Microfinance Bank Limited vs versus Appellate Tribunal for Sales2023 PTD 1782 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
- Tehsil Municipal Officer Serai Naurang vs Suleman Shah & others2023 PHC 586 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
- Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) through Tehsil Municipal Officer TMA, Haripur vs Raja Khan and another2023 CLC 1066 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-27Read full judgment →
- Tauseef & 2 others vs The State & another2023 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
- Taj Ali Khan vs The State etc2023 PHC 301 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-06Read full judgment →
- Tahir Mehmood Khan vs Muhammad Saleem and 2 others2023 YLR 999 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
- Tafakhar Hussain vs Chancellor Gomal University and others2023 PHC 480 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Gomal University, challenged his dismissal from service following allegations of sexual harassment and blackmailing a student via WhatsApp messages. The core legal questions concerned whether the Vice-Chancellor had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, whether the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the complainant violated natural justice, and whether the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally flawed. The Court held that the proceedings were competently initiated, as the Syndicate had delegated the necessary authority to the Vice-Chancellor and subsequently ratified the actions. The Court further held that the petitioner’s admission of the WhatsApp communication before the Inquiry Committee rendered the lack of cross-examination and the absence of technical authentication of the messages immaterial. The Court emphasized that teachers hold a position of trust and must maintain high moral standards. While upholding the finding of guilt, the Court, considering the severity of the penalty, exercised its discretion to convert the major penalty of dismissal from service to removal from service, thereby mitigating the financial and professional consequences for the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does an admission of guilt during inquiry proceedings dispense with the requirement for cross-examination of the complainant?
- Can a University Syndicate delegate the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings to the Vice-Chancellor?
- Is a formal inquiry mandatory in all disciplinary cases under the Gomal University Employees Efficiency and Discipline Statutes, 2016?
- Does the subsequent ratification by a competent authority validate disciplinary proceedings initiated by an officer lacking initial authorization?
- Syed Raheem vs Muhammad Kareem and others2023 PHC 133, 2024 MLD 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
- Syed Mussarat Shah and another vs Mian Muhammad Mehmood & others2023 PHC 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-11Read full judgment →
- Syed Mubashir Ahmad vs D.C. Haripur and others2023 PHC 271 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-15Read full judgment →
- Syed Mazhar Ali Shah vs Qavi Ullah2023 PHC 564, 2023 PHC 420, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 48, 2024 YLR 2749 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
- Wajid Ali & others vs The State & another2023 PHC 247, 2025 YLR 413 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and a judicial confession to sustain a death sentence, the legality of simultaneous convictions for murder and the disappearance of evidence under Section 201, and the evidentiary value of a co-accused's confession against others. The High Court maintained the conviction of the primary appellant under Section 302(b) but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the emotional motive. The Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 201, holding that an offender cannot be punished for both the main offence and the disappearance of evidence to screen themselves. Furthermore, the Court acquitted the co-accused, ruling that in the absence of independent incriminating evidence or recoveries, the confession of a co-accused is insufficient for conviction. The judgment reaffirms that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain and that Section 201 PPC is inapplicable to the principal offender.
Questions settled- Can an accused be simultaneously convicted for murder and for the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the confession of a co-accused sufficient to sustain the conviction of other co-accused in the absence of independent corroborating evidence?
- Does a case based on circumstantial evidence justify the imposition of the death penalty?
- Can an appellate court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the nature of the evidence and the motive?
- Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah vs Mst. Kalsoom Bibi through Legal Heirs etc2023 PHC 52, 2024 CLC 181 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-23Read full judgment →
- Syed Farman Ali Shah vs Mian Syed Wahab Bacha and another2023 PHC 554, 2024 MLD 1055 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-04Read full judgment →
- Syed Amjad Hussain & 2 others vs The State2023 PHC 177, 2024 MLD 940 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sui Northern Gas Pipeline through Incharge Sui Gas Office, Charsadda and 2 others vs Gul Hakeem and another2023 CLC 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-24Read full judgment →
- State vs Javed Iqbal & another2023 PHC 460 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Inayatur2023 YLR 1338 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by the State under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the recovery of narcotics. Upon review, the High Court identified significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including inconsistencies in the time of FIR registration, uncertainty regarding the identity of the official who transported samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and conflicting testimonies from key witnesses regarding the recovery proceedings and the weighing process. Furthermore, the physical examination of the case property revealed that the weights did not match the reported quantities, and the chemical analysis report was deemed unreliable due to missing signatures and unexplained delays. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, and the acquittal was upheld. The judgment reinforces the principle that material contradictions and procedural lapses in narcotics cases create reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Questions settled- Does a significant discrepancy between the time of FIR registration and the testimony of police witnesses regarding the receipt of the murasila undermine the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained in a narcotics case where the weight of the recovered contraband does not match the quantities reported in the recovery memo?
- Is a chemical analysis report reliable if it lacks the signature of the chemical examiner and shows an unexplained delay in the submission of samples?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to provide consistent testimony regarding the recovery process and the identity of the sample carrier warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Aqil Muhammad2023 YLR 2599 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a case involving the possession of narcotics and an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the evidence and procedural lapses. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with fatal contradictions, including discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence, the nature of the alleged act, and the quantity of narcotics recovered. Furthermore, the Court noted a significant, unexplained delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, violating the 72-hour requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001. Additionally, the failure to associate public witnesses for the weapon recovery and the absence of an arms expert report further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal, affirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a delay in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond the 72-hour period provided in the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 vitiate the prosecution case?
- What are the parameters for reversing an acquittal in a criminal appeal?
- Is the failure to associate public witnesses during a recovery in a populous area fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Does a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence entitle an accused to acquittal?
- State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Hidayat Ullah2023 PHC 197 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Nawab Ali Khan2023 PHC 488 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Aqil Muhammad2023 PHC 195 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
- State through A.A.G. at Dar-ul-Qaza Swat vs Khalid Khan and Another2023 PHC 68, 2024 MLD 348 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-24Read full judgment →
- Sonia Javed and another vs The State and others2023 PHC 576 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
- Siraj Ahmad vs The State2023 PHC 516 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Jail Criminal Appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant, Siraj Ahmad, by the trial court in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. The appellant was convicted for offenses including murder and sexual assault. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court concerned the appropriateness of the death sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, the High Court maintained the convictions but exercised its discretion to modify the sentences. The court held that the death sentences on two counts under Section 302(b) and Section 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should be reduced to imprisonment for life on both counts. The court further ordered that all sentences of imprisonment run concurrently, granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and upheld the trial court's order regarding compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Murder Reference submitted by the trial court was answered in the negative.
Questions settled- Can the High Court reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life in a criminal appeal?
- Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to sentences of life imprisonment?
- Should multiple sentences of imprisonment run concurrently or consecutively in the absence of specific trial court directions?
- Sheraz Khan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1604 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the acquittal of respondents in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide cogent, convincing evidence, noting significant discrepancies between the ocular account and medical reports, particularly regarding the number of injuries and the positioning of the parties. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that testimony from interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Additionally, the Court ruled that a statement recorded by an investigating officer from an injured party weeks after the incident, without medical certification of the declarant's mental state, fails to qualify as a valid dying declaration. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's case riddled with material contradictions and improvements, rendering the evidence unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries create reasonable doubt?
- Can a statement recorded by an investigating officer from an injured person weeks after the occurrence be admitted as a dying declaration?
- Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR, combined with discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, undermine the credibility of the case?
- Sher Shah and others vs Bahadur Sher and others2023 PHC 211 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-19Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan vs Secretary, Establishment (Establishment Division), Cabinet2023 PLC (C.S) 802 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired employee of Pakistan Railways, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ to upgrade his post of Stenographer to BS-16 with effect from 23.12.2011, along with subsequent promotion to BS-18. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a second upgradation to BS-16 despite having already received an earlier upgradation to that scale in 2007 and having been subsequently promoted to BS-17 in 2018. The Peshawar High Court held that the petition was devoid of merit. The Court observed that the petitioner had already been granted upgradation to BS-16 in 2007, had received the corresponding pay and allowances, and was later promoted to BS-17 before his retirement in 2018. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition, filed in 2021 regarding events dating back to 2011, was barred by laches. The key principle laid down is that a public servant is not entitled to claim a second upgradation for the same post when they have already been granted the benefit of that upgradation and subsequent promotion, particularly when the claim is significantly delayed.
Questions settled- Is a public servant entitled to a second upgradation to the same pay scale if they have already received the benefit of that upgradation previously?
- Does a delay of several years in filing a service-related petition constitute laches?
- Can a retired employee claim further upgradation and promotion for a post held prior to superannuation?
- Sher Afzal Khan vs Noor Islam and others2023 CLC 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed vs State and 3 others2023 PLJ Peshawar 121, 2023 P Cr. L J 1567 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a Judicial Magistrate's order discharging two respondents from a criminal case registered under Sections 489-F, 420, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, the complainant, argued that the police and the Magistrate erred in discharging the respondents despite their initial inclusion in the investigation. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate acted within their jurisdiction under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in discharging the respondents based on the police's finding of insufficient evidence. The Court held that the impugned order was lawful and justified. It affirmed that while the police's opinion is not binding on the Court, the Magistrate has the authority to discharge an accused if the investigation reveals insufficient evidence or reasonable grounds to justify forwarding the accused for trial. The Court emphasized that it is unfair to subject an innocent person to the hardships of a criminal trial when no prima facie case exists, and therefore, the Magistrate's order was upheld as a valid exercise of judicial discretion.
Questions settled- Does a Judicial Magistrate have the authority to discharge an accused person based on a police report indicating insufficient evidence?
- Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of an accused binding upon the Court?
- Can a High Court interfere with a Magistrate's order of discharge under its constitutional jurisdiction if the order is based on a valid investigation report?
- Shaukat Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 PLC (C.S.) 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Peshawar High Court seeking appointment as an Assistant Information Officer (BS-16) in the Information and Public Relations Department in place of the private respondent, claiming entitlement to extra marks on the basis of higher qualifications and practical experience. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to extra marks for higher qualification and whether his prior experience met the prescribed criteria. The court held that the petitioner's higher qualification (M.A Journalism and Mass Communication) was correctly utilized to confer eligibility to apply since he lacked the prescribed undergraduate subjects or regular full-time paid experience, and that he was not entitled to additional extra marks for the same qualification. Furthermore, upon a tie in marks, the private respondent was rightly preferred being older in age pursuant to the applicable service regulations. The court dismissed the petition, laying down that higher qualification used to establish eligibility cannot be simultaneously double-counted for extra marks, and that practical experience must strictly conform to the definition of a regular full-time paid job acquired after the prescribed qualification.
Questions settled- Can a candidate claim extra marks for a higher qualification that was already utilized to confer eligibility for a public post?
- What constitutes valid practical experience under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations 2017?
- How is a tie in marks between candidates resolved under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations 2017?
- Sharif Ullah alias Sharpy vs The State2023 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-18Read full judgment →
- Shamshad Alam vs Ghazanfarullah Khan2023 PLJ Peshawar 55 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
- Shal Badshah vs Shabir Rehman2023 PHC 193 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State2023 MLD 2047 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under sections 9(c), 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession and trafficking of narcotics. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the compromised credibility of the complainant/investigation officer and the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with significant doubts, including the failure to produce daily diaries to verify police movement, the lack of independent witnesses despite the proximity of a police check post, and the failure to prove the safe custody of the recovered contraband through the production of relevant registers. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that where the primary witness has a dubious record involving corruption, independent corroboration is mandatory. The Court reaffirmed the principle that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce police daily diaries regarding the departure and arrival of the raiding party create a fatal doubt in a narcotics case?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a police official who has been dismissed from service for corruption?
- Does the failure to produce Register 19 and Register 21 to prove the safe custody of recovered contraband entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Is an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 applicable when the prosecution abandons a material witness?
- Shahzad Kiyani vs The State etc2023 PHC 510 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court to the appellants for the qatl-e-amd of the deceased in pursuance of sectarian terrorism, alongside charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act and arms laws. The core legal questions revolved around the evidentiary value and voluntariness of delayed police and judicial confessions, the safety and transmission of crime empties linked through forensic analysis, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence regarding criminal conspiracy and membership of a proscribed organization. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to severe flaws including coerced and unverified confessional statements, unsealed crime empties with broken chain of custody, and insufficient direct or corroborative evidence. The court established that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, consequently setting aside the convictions, acquitting the appellants, and answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether a confessional statement recorded by a police officer under Section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is admissible without independent corroborative evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
- Does an undue delay in recording a judicial or police confession vitiate its voluntariness and render it inadmissible for sustaining a capital conviction?
- Is the positive matching report of crime empties with a recovered weapon sufficient to maintain a conviction when the chain of custody and proper sealing of the empties at the spot are not established?
- Can a conviction for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessions and unsubstantiated circumstantial data?
- Shahid Khan vs The State etc.2023 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-14Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ali S/o Nawab Ali, Resident of Fiza Gat, Mohallah Hayat Abad,2023 PHC 598 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
- Shaheen Shah vs The State through A.G and others2023 PHC 283 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-11Read full judgment →
- Shahab-ud-Din and one another vs Alam Zeb & 03 others2023 PHC 131, 2024 YLR 1122 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-15Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 259 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 11(b) of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, for the possession of 500 grams of methamphetamine ('ICE'). The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the recovery of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt and whether the chain of custody for the forensic samples remained intact. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence, primarily consisting of consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony from official witnesses, successfully proved the recovery and the safe transmission of the contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions in witness statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case when the overall evidence is consistent. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the absence of private witnesses does not vitiate recovery proceedings under the special narcotic law, which excludes the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld.
Questions settled- Does the absence of private witnesses invalidate recovery proceedings conducted under The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
- Can the testimony of official witnesses be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases if found consistent and confidence-inspiring?
- Do minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
- Is the requirement of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to recoveries made under The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
- Shah Fahad vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Islamabad & others2023 PHC 149 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shafiullah vs Junaid Khan and another2023 MLD 1452 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan, in a murder case involving the deaths of two women. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient, unimpeachable evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the complainant had dishonestly improved his statement, the alleged recovery of the murder weapon was not supported by forensic evidence, and the Call Data Record (CDR) evidence was inadmissible due to lack of authentication. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The judgment reaffirms the principles that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain of events leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, particularly when two views of the evidence are possible.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is not conclusive?
- Is an improved statement by a witness, made to strengthen the prosecution's case, reliable in criminal proceedings?
- Does the benefit of doubt constitute a legal right of the accused or a discretionary concession by the court?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment in the absence of compelling and substantial reasons?
- Shafiq-Ur-Rehman and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition filed by convicts seeking the conversion of their sentence of payment of compensation into simple imprisonment and the consolidation of multiple sentences in different trials. The Peshawar High Court examined whether it could exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to convert the appeal into a quashment petition and whether sentences arising from different trials out of the same transaction could be ordered to run concurrently under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that where distinct trials arise from the same transaction and the earlier conviction was not brought to the notice of the court at the time of the subsequent conviction, the High Court possesses wide jurisdiction under section 561-A read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that multiple sentences run concurrently. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise inherent and statutory powers to order sentences from separate trials emanating from a single transaction to run concurrently to meet the ends of justice and prevent hardship.
Questions settled- Can a High Court convert an appeal into a quashment petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after dismissing the initial appeal?
- Whether sentences awarded in two different trials arising out of the same transaction can be ordered to run concurrently?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under section 561-A read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to consolidate sentences even if the issue was not addressed by the trial or appellate court?
- Shad Nabi vs Naimat Khan and another2023 MLD 520 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, who was charged under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail given the allegations of direct nomination in the FIR, the recovery of multiple firearm empties, and the acquittal of a co-accused who allegedly played a similar role. The Court held that the accused-petitioner was prima facie connected to the offense, noting that the FSL report corroborated the use of multiple weapons and that the accused had absconded while his co-accused faced trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, finding the case fell within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly nominated in an FIR for a capital offense and forensic evidence supports the prosecution's version of multiple assailants, the mere acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle the absconding accused to bail.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused with a similar role automatically entitle an absconding accused to the concession of bail?
- Does the recovery of multiple firearm empties and direct nomination in an FIR connect an accused to an offense under the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused who absconds during the trial of co-accused entitled to the same evidentiary considerations as those who faced trial?
- Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate, Member Peshawar High Court Bar2023 PLJ Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shahid Ali sloHazir Muhammad, Resident of Managi District Swabi vs The State etc2023 PHC 446 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sayyab Khan vs Mst. Tayyaba Bibi and 2 others2023 CLC 1344 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-06Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Khan vs Abdul Wahab and another2023 YLR 693 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed under Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Tank, in a murder case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondent and other police officials fired at the deceased, causing his death. The trial court acquitted the respondent, extending him the benefit of doubt. Upon review, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the respondent's presence at the scene of the occurrence or any nexus with the commission of the offence. The court noted that the respondent's name was absent from the relevant daily diary and no evidence linked him to the incident. Affirming the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused and that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, the Court held that there were no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as meritless.
Questions settled- Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused in criminal proceedings?
- Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Does the absence of an accused's name from the daily diary of a police station constitute sufficient grounds to doubt their presence at the scene of the crime?
- Sarfaraz Khan & others vs Quresh Khan & others2023 PHC 514, 2024 CLC 1922 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
- Sardar Jan and others vs Muhammad Rafiq & others2023 PHC 562 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah & others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & other2023 PHC 273 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →
- Sana Ali Khan vs Behram Khan and 06 others2023 PHC 458 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Samson Group of Companies vs Public Private Partnership and others2023 CLC 1699, 2023 CLD 1072 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
- Salman Khan vs The State & another2023 PHC 165, 2024 MLD 392 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
- Salman Khan and 2 others vs University of Swat through Vice-Chancellor2023 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →