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.
- Saleem Ahmad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 1043 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the failure of the provincial government to appoint the petitioner, a disabled candidate, against the reserved 2% disabled quota for teaching positions. The core legal question was whether the disability quota should be calculated based on the specific posts advertised or the total sanctioned strength of the establishment. The Court held that the quota must be calculated on the basis of the total number of persons employed by the establishment, rather than the number of posts advertised at a given time. Finding that the total sanctioned strength of 2094 posts indicated a shortfall in the fulfillment of the disabled quota, the Court ruled that the respondents were legally obligated to appoint the petitioner. The judgment establishes the principle that disability quotas are to be calculated against the total sanctioned strength of an establishment to ensure fair representation. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner against an available post, emphasizing that public functionaries must act fairly and within the parameters of the law, subject to judicial review under Article 199.
Questions settled- Is the 2% disabled quota calculated based on the specific posts advertised or the total sanctioned strength of an establishment?
- Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to direct an executive authority to fulfill statutory quotas for disabled persons?
- Can an establishment refuse to appoint a qualified disabled candidate by claiming the quota for a specific advertised post is already filled?
- Salah-ud-Din vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a qualified Patwari candidate, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to appoint him as a Patwari, relying on provisions of the Land Record Manual and his inclusion in the Patwar register. The core legal question was whether appointments to the post of Patwari must be governed by obsolete provisions of the Land Record Manual or by the current statutory service rules and recruitment policies. The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on Paragraph 3.11 of the Land Record Manual was misplaced, as that provision had been omitted decades prior. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Paragraph 3.6 of the Land Record Manual mandates that appointments be made strictly in accordance with applicable service rules. Since the government had duly amended the recruitment rules in 2016 to require a competitive test and interview process, the petitioner could not claim appointment based solely on his prior registration. The Court established that administrative rules regarding recruitment supersede outdated manual provisions and that candidates must compete through the prescribed recruitment process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the appointment of a Patwari can be claimed based on provisions of the Land Record Manual that have been omitted?
- Does Paragraph 3.6 of the Land Record Manual mandate that Patwari appointments be made according to current service rules?
- Can a candidate claim appointment as a Patwari solely on the basis of being entered in the Patwar register without undergoing a competitive test and interview?
- Are the 2016 amendments to the recruitment rules for Patwaris in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa legally valid and binding?
- Sajjad Ahmed vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1508 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the lower court exercised its discretion judicially in granting bail, or whether the order was perverse and based on irrelevant considerations. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and recalled the bail order. The Court held that the lower court had engaged in an impermissible deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage, such as questioning the bore of the weapon and the delay in recording a witness statement, while ignoring prima facie evidence like the FIR and postmortem report. The judgment reaffirmed that bail orders based on irrelevant material or ignoring the weight of evidence are perverse and liable to be cancelled. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bail surety amounts must be reasonable and sufficient to ensure the accused's presence, noting that meager amounts are inadequate in the context of current economic conditions.
Questions settled- Can a bail order be cancelled if the lower court engaged in deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
- Does a discrepancy between the weapon mentioned in the FIR and the weapon recovered constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail in a murder case?
- Is a bail order considered perverse if it ignores prima facie evidence linking the accused to the crime?
- What criteria should a court consider when determining the adequacy of a surety amount for bail?
- Sajjad Ahmad vs State2023 PHC 12 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
- Sajid vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested primarily on an oral dying declaration made by the deceased while injured, as no other eye-witnesses were produced. The core legal question was whether the dying declaration was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction given the lack of corroborating evidence and significant procedural discrepancies. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a 24-hour delay, the site plan was unverified, and the prosecution withheld material witnesses, including the person who transported the victim to the hospital. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court held that a dying declaration is a weak form of evidence requiring close scrutiny and independent corroboration. Finding the prosecution's case riddled with doubts and inconsistencies, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that criminal guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution withholds best evidence, adverse inferences may be drawn, and a conviction cannot rest on a dubious dying declaration without corroboration.
Questions settled- Is a dying declaration sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution withholding the best available evidence?
- Does medical evidence alone suffice to connect an accused to the commission of an offence?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay and material discrepancies exist in the investigation?
- Sajid Khan vs Deputy Commissioner Haripur & 07 others2023 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-20Read full judgment →
- Saif Ullah Khan vs Mirza Ali Khan & 03 others2023 PHC 550 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-09Read full judgment →
- Said Rehman vs The State2023 PHC 520, 2025 YLR 632 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court regarding a triple murder case under Sections 302, 324, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged discrepancies in the ocular account and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court identified significant contradictions: the eyewitnesses’ presence was doubtful, the FIR registration process was shrouded in mystery, and the medical evidence conflicted with the ocular testimony regarding the location of the injuries. Furthermore, the absence of blood at the alleged crime scene undermined the prosecution's narrative. The court emphasized that courts must not be swayed by the number of casualties or accused, but must rigorously scrutinize evidence. It held that motive can be a double-edged sword, potentially serving as a basis for false implication, and that abscondence alone is insufficient to prove guilt. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the unexplained abscondence of an accused person constitute conclusive proof of guilt?
- Can a motive for a crime also serve as a basis for the false implication of the accused?
- What is the legal effect when there is a significant conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account of an occurrence?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime?
- Said Ali Shah son of Said Ahmad Shah vs Bakht Zada & others2023 PHC 173, 2024 MLD 675 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
- Said Afzal vs The State2023 YLR 2110 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 for possessing an unlicensed Kalashnikov, resulting in a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of prosecution evidence regarding recovery, the non-production of case property, missing daily diary entries, and the legal validity of a judicial confession. The Peshawar High Court held that material flaws in the prosecution case, including a private recovery witness failing to support the recovery, the failure to produce the case property in court, missing departure and arrival diary entries, and procedural lapses in recording the confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, created multiple reasonable doubts. The court laid down the principle that even a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. The appeal was consequently allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether the non-production of case property during the trial constitutes a fatal dent in the prosecution case?
- Does the failure of a private marginal recovery witness to support the prosecution version vitiate the recovery when police witnesses depose in its favor?
- Whether mechanical compliance with procedural requirements in recording a confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the confession involuntary?
- Is an absconding co-accused entitled to benefit of an acquittal granted to a co-appellant who contested the trial?
- Sahib Gul & 03 Others vs Soucha Gul & Others2023 PHC 187 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
- Safaidullah and others vs Gul Dad2023 CLC 708 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
- Saeedullah vs Lal Sher2023 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
- Saeedullah vs Lal Sher and others2023 PLD Peshawar 110, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1053 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the petitioner's application for the transfer of his trial to the Juvenile Court and the deletion of Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether an Anti-Terrorism Court or a Juvenile Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to try a juvenile accused of an offence of terrorism under the interplay of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Peshawar High Court held that the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, being the later statute with an overriding non-obstante clause and specific safeguards for juveniles, takes precedence over the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court laid down the principle that a juvenile accused of committing a terrorism-related offence must be tried exclusively by the Juvenile Court established under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, ensuring that critical substantive and procedural safeguards, including rehabilitative measures and protection from capital punishment, are fully upheld.
Questions settled- Whether the Anti-Terrorism Court or the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction to try a juvenile accused of an offence of terrorism?
- Do the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 override the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 in cases involving juvenile offenders?
- What is the legal effect of the expiry of a temporary ordinance on permanent statutes and previous notifications?
- Are juvenile offenders accused of terrorism-related offences exempt from capital punishment under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
- Sadiq vs Hizbullah and another2023 YLR 1027 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail petition was filed by petitioner Sadiq in FIR No.337 dated 25.03.2016 under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of his earlier bail application on merits. The petitioner sought bail on medical grounds based on a Standing Medical Board report detailing post-surgery back pain and sciatica. The Peshawar High Court examined whether the petitioner's medical condition justified post-arrest bail. The Court observed that the medical report did not classify his ailment as life-threatening or unmanageable while in custody. Furthermore, jail authorities were facilitating necessary specialized treatment at a public hospital. The Court also highlighted that the petitioner had suppressed or delayed raising the medical ground during earlier bail applications after a period of abscondence. Consequently, the High Court held that discretion to grant bail on medical grounds could not be exercised, dismissed the petition, directed the jail superintendent to ensure continued specialized treatment, and requested the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether bail on medical grounds can be granted if the illness is not hazardous to life and treatment is being adequately provided by jail authorities?
- Can a petitioner seek bail on medical grounds in a second round of bail petitions when such a ground was available but not raised in earlier bail proceedings on merits?
- Does a direction for specialized medical treatment of an accused in custody preclude the grant of post-arrest bail on medical grounds?
- Rustam Khan vs Mst. Pathani through Legal Heirs and others2023 PHC 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-12Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ullah vs The State2022 PHC 320, 2023 MLD 1163 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-19Read full judgment →
- Rifat Ullah vs Mst. Hadia Mustafa and others2023 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Riaz Muhammad vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018, where the appellant was sentenced to twenty-five years of rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Commissioner/ADM. The core legal questions concern whether the conviction was valid despite the failure to refer the matter to the Council of Elders as mandated by the Regulations, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The Court held that the failure to refer the case to the Council of Elders violated the mandatory procedural requirements of the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018, rendering the conviction legally unwarranted. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the right to appeal against a conviction is a fundamental right under the Constitution, and procedural technicalities regarding limitation should not override the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the case was remanded for a de novo trial before the Sessions Judge, with the appellant granted bail pending the new trial.
Questions settled- Does the failure to refer a criminal case to the Council of Elders under the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018, invalidate a conviction?
- Can the delay in filing an appeal against a criminal conviction be condoned based on the fundamental right to a fair trial?
- Are the provisions of the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018, regarding the trial of criminal cases mandatory?
- Does the right to appeal against a conviction constitute a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Raziq Jan vs The State and another2023 YLR 2401 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder, kidnapping, and causing disappearance of evidence. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of pointing out a grave leading to the recovery of a dead body under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the legality of confessional statements, and whether an abduction charge is made out when the victim and accused are neighbors and the crime occurs in close proximity. The Peshawar High Court held that direct evidence is not mandatory and a conviction can be sustained on strong circumstantial evidence, including voluntary pointation and recovery of the corpus delicti. However, the court set aside the conviction for kidnapping under Section 364-A, P.P.C. because the element of abduction was not established given the neighborhood proximity, and acquitted the main appellant of concealing evidence since he was the primary perpetrator of the murder. The key principles laid down include that pointation of a grave by an accused leading to the discovery of a dead body is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimonies cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their official status.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence such as pointation and recovery of a dead body?
- Whether the pointation of a grave by an accused person is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does the non-association of independent private witnesses vitiate a recovery made pursuant to the pointation of an accused under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the offense of kidnapping under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is made out when the victim and the accused reside as immediate neighbors and the crime occurs in close proximity?
- Raza Shah vs Superintendent Central Prison, Peshawar and another2023 YLR 434 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order dismissing the petitioner's appeal for the conversion of consecutive sentences into concurrent ones. The petitioner had been convicted in four separate cases under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving three years of imprisonment in each case. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, possesses the authority to direct that consecutive sentences imposed in separate trials run concurrently under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that Section 397 confers wide discretion upon the court to order concurrent sentences based on the facts and circumstances of each case, aiming to balance punitive measures with the reformatory purpose of imprisonment. Emphasizing that the administration of justice requires undoing wrongs and preventing unnecessary judicial processes, the Court ordered that the petitioner’s sentences run concurrently. The judgment establishes that the power to order concurrent sentences is not limited to the trial stage but may be exercised by appellate or revisional courts to ensure substantial justice and proportionality in sentencing.
Questions settled- Can a High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, order consecutive sentences to run concurrently?
- Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant the court discretion to order concurrent sentences in separate trials?
- Is the power to order concurrent sentences limited to the trial court, or can it be exercised by an appellate or revisional court?
- Raza Khan vs Haji Javaid and others2023 YLR 367 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
- Rashim Khan vs Fida Hussain and 2 others2023 MLD 759 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ali vs The State etc.2023 PHC 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-14Read full judgment →
- Raja Mohammad Tahir Ayub vs Mohammad Irfan Qureshi2023 MLD 478 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
- Rahman Ghani vs Yaqoob Khan and 17 others2023 PLJ Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-07Read full judgment →
- Rahat Gul and 2 others vs The State2023 MLD 1935 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arises out of an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners Rahat Gul and Niamat Ullah in connection with FIR No. 1414 registered under sections 9-D/11-B of the KP CNSA, 2019 and section 15 of the Arms Ordinance, at Police Station Rehman Baba, Peshawar. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the varying degrees of incriminating material and recoveries attributed to each. The Peshawar High Court held that petitioner Niamat Ullah was entitled to bail as the premises where the narcotics were recovered did not belong to him and the weapon recovered from his possession did not fall within the prohibitory clause, rendering his case one of further inquiry. Conversely, the bail petition of petitioner Rahat Gul was dismissed on the ground that the contraband was recovered from his owned premises in his presence, supported by statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report, prima facie connecting him to a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that constructive possession and ownership of premises from where commercial quantities of narcotics are recovered disentitles an accused to bail, whereas absence of ownership of premises and recovery of minor weapons warrants further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether an accused from whose immediate possession only a licensed or unlicensed pistol is recovered is entitled to post-arrest bail when the major narcotics recovery is from premises owned by a co-accused?
- Does the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics from premises owned and controlled by an accused prima facie connect him to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be relied upon for tentative assessment while deciding a post-arrest bail petition?
- Rabnawaz vs Mst. Sabu Bibi and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 49 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz vs The State and another2023 YLR 1266 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302, 324, 337-D, and 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could be invoked in a sudden, per chance encounter where specific overt acts were attributed to individual co-accused rather than a pre-arranged plan. The Peshawar High Court held that common intention requires a prior meeting of minds and a pre-arranged plan, distinguishing it from mere similar intention, and that the trial court erred in applying vicarious liability for the murders where the accused only fired at an injured witness during a chance confrontation. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction for causing injuries under sections 324, 337-D, and 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, set aside the murder convictions under Section 302, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement.
Questions settled- Whether common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be inferred in the absence of a prior meeting of minds or a pre-arranged plan?
- Does a chance encounter in a thoroughfare substantiate a charge of vicarious liability for murder committed by co-accused?
- What is the distinction between same or similar intention and common intention in criminal jurisprudence?
- Whether an accused can be convicted for substantive injuries while being acquitted of murder charges when specific overt acts are proven independently?
- Rab Nawaz Khan vs Dilawar Khan & 18 others2023 PHC 305 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-20Read full judgment →
- Qudrat Ullah vs The State etc2023 PHC 281, 2024 MLD 101 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
- Qudrat Ullah alias Ghani vs The State2023 PHC 432 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-06Read full judgment →
- Qazi Muhammad Azhar, Advocate and another vs Federation of Pakistan2023 MLD 113 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
- Qayum Khan vs Hasanzeb2023 PHC 466 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
- Qasam Khan son of Ghulam Raza vs The State2023 PHC 219, 2024 YLR 1882 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
- Qaim Ali Shah and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PLC (C.S.) 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioners' services as Special Police Officers and sought regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners, appointed after the statutory cut-off date of August 1, 2019, were entitled to regularization, and whether the High Court could intervene in contractual employment disputes via writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the petitioners were ineligible for regularization because they did not hold the post on the specified cut-off date. The Court emphasized that when statutory language is clear, it cannot be altered by judicial interpretation. Furthermore, the Court held that contractual employees have no vested right to regularization absent specific statutory provision. The judgment affirmed that the relationship between the employer and contract employees is governed by the doctrine of master and servant, and constitutional petitions are not the appropriate forum for enforcing contractual service terms or seeking reinstatement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can a High Court enforce the terms and conditions of a contract of service through a constitutional petition?
- Does a contractual employee have a vested right to regularization in the absence of specific statutory backing?
- Can a court read into or read down a statute when the legislative language is clear and unambiguous?
- Is the relationship between a government employer and a contract employee governed by the doctrine of master and servant?
- Provincial Government through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar etc vs Kamal Khan etc2023 PHC 508, 2025 YLR 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
- Project Director New Thakot Bridge and others vs Sher Zada and others2023 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
- Peshawar High Court Bar vs State etc.2023 PLJ Peshawar 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-15Read full judgment →
- PESCO through Chief Executive PESCO and others vs Mohib Ullah Khan and another2023 YLR 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
- Sahib Gul and 3 others vs Soucha Gul and others2023 CLC 2019 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Accumulators (Pvt) Limited vs Additional Commissioner lnland2023 PHC 338 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Noor-ur-Rehman vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 826 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and fourteen-year sentence under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant acted in self-defence and the determination of an appropriate sentence given the factual background. The court observed that the deceased had committed illegal trespass into the appellant’s house, which served as a mitigating factor. Although the appellant exceeded the right of private defence by firing at the deceased, the court noted that the shot was directed at a non-vital part (the thigh) and the appellant refrained from further firing despite having the opportunity. Consequently, the court held that the appellant had exercised a right of self-defence, albeit excessively. The court affirmed the principle that a plea of self-defence may be inferred from the evidence even if not explicitly raised during trial. Furthermore, it reiterated that cases falling under the exceptions of the former Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are to be adjudicated under Section 302(c). The court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence to ten years.
Questions settled- Can a plea of self-defence be considered by the court if it was not explicitly raised by the accused during the trial?
- Are cases falling under the exceptions of the former Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be adjudicated under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the illegal trespass of a deceased into an accused's home constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
- Noor Ullah vs The State and another2023 YLR 1039 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his brother. The core legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient, confidence-inspiring evidence to sustain the conviction, particularly given the absence of eyewitnesses and the failure to establish the alleged motive. The Peshawar High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps: no eyewitnesses were produced, the investigating officer failed to secure independent witnesses, and the alleged motive—a domestic dispute—remained unproven. The Court held that when the prosecution sets up a specific motive and fails to establish it, the prosecution must suffer the consequences. Emphasizing that the quality of evidence is paramount and that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the Court reiterating that the benefit of doubt is a legal right, not a concession.
Questions settled- What are the consequences when the prosecution fails to establish a motive it has specifically set up?
- Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right for an accused?
- Does the absence of eyewitnesses in a murder case necessitate the acquittal of the accused if other evidence is insufficient?
- Noor Shah Ali Khan alias Nawarish Ali Khan vs Khan Momin and 6 others2023 CLC 2002 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
- Noor Rehman and another vs The State through Additional Advocate2023 PCRLJ 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302, 322, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, arising from a murder case registered in 2011. The core legal question was whether the bar on compounding honor-killing offenses introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on Pretext of Honor) Act, 2016 applies retrospectively to offenses committed prior to its enactment, thereby precluding a compromise between the parties. The Peshawar High Court held that the 2016 amendment Act does not apply retrospectively to impair vested or substantive rights accrued under the law in force at the time of the offense in 2011, when the offense was compoundable with the permission of the court. The court established that the relevant date for determining the compoundability of an offense is the date of the occurrence. Consequently, the court accepted the genuine compromise reached between the appellants and the legal heirs of the deceased, setting aside the murder convictions and acquitting the appellants while safeguarding the interests of minor legal heirs.
Questions settled- Does the bar on compounding honor-killing offenses introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the Name or on Pretext of Honor) Act, 2016 apply retrospectively to offenses committed prior to its enactment?
- What is the relevant date for determining whether an offense is compoundable under the law?
- Can a statute that takes away or impairs vested rights enjoyed under an existing law be presumed to have retrospective effect?
- How are the interests of minor legal heirs protected when a compromise is effected in a murder case involving Diyat?
- Noor Habib Shah vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1413 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of Noor Alam Shah under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. A concurrent criminal revision sought the enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony amidst alleged inconsistencies, the evidentiary value of site plans, and whether the witnesses' conduct was unnatural. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eye-witness accounts and medical evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the revision for sentence enhancement, noting that the occurrence happened suddenly. Key principles laid down include: site plans are not substantive evidence and cannot be used to discredit unchallenged eye-witness testimony; minor inconsistencies arising from relentless cross-examination do not warrant discarding otherwise credible testimony; and absconsion, while not sufficient alone to prove guilt, serves as valid corroboratory evidence. The Court emphasized that courts should focus on the general demeanor and truthfulness of witnesses rather than manufactured contradictions.
Questions settled- Is a site plan a substantive piece of evidence that can be used to discredit eye-witness testimony?
- Does the presence of minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony during cross-examination necessarily invalidate their entire statement?
- Can the conduct of witnesses who fail to apprehend an assailant immediately after a shooting be deemed unnatural?
- Is absconsion sufficient by itself to prove guilt in a criminal case?
- Noor Din vs Kanay2023 PHC 121 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
- Noor Ajab and 3 others vs Ahmed Nawaz Khan and 2 others2023 MLD 576 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
- Nisar vs Said Qamar (Late) through LRs and others2023 MLD 1870 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-13Read full judgment →
- Nisar deceased through Legal Heirs Muhammad Akram and others vs Muhammad Iqbal deceased through Legal Heirs Mst. Riasat Begum and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 159 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nisar Ali vs Chairman Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission and another2023 PHC 544 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Niaz vs The State and another2023 YLR 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was moved by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 159 registered under Sections 324/337-F(iii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question revolved around whether discrepancies between the ocular account, medical evidence regarding charring marks from specified distances, and the injury sheet created a case of further inquiry entitling the accused to bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the presence of charring marks on both the entry and exit wounds despite distances ranging from eight to twenty paces, alongside contradictions between the medical report and the site plan, rendered the prosecution's version subject to further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the physical possibility of firearm injuries and charring marks at given distances make out a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding charring marks at a distance create a case for further inquiry?
- Does a discrepancy between the injury sheet and the medico-legal report regarding the number of firearm injuries justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the distance between the assailant and the victim raises questions about the presence of charring marks?
- Niaz Muhammad etc, Momin Khan and another vs The State etc, The State2023 PHC 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
- Nek Din etc vs The State etc2023 PHC 492 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad and 10 others vs Hasanullah and 17 others2023 PHC 135 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Nayab Khan vs Chief Executive Office PESCO, Peshawar and others2023 PLC (C.S) 944 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of Peshawar Electric Supply Company Limited (PESCO), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging his transfer order. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable against PESCO by its employee regarding terms and conditions of service in the absence of statutory rules. The court held that PESCO is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance and lacks statutory rules governing its service terms; consequently, the relationship between PESCO and its employees is governed by the principle of Master and Servant, making the writ petition non-maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that where an organization is a corporate entity without statutory service rules, its employees cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and their remedy lies before a civil court.
Questions settled- Are the service rules of Peshawar Electric Supply Company Limited (PESCO) statutory in nature?
- Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained by an employee of PESCO against a transfer order?
- Does the principle of Master and Servant apply to the employment relationship of PESCO employees?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a PESCO employee aggrieved by an adverse personnel action in the absence of statutory rules?
- Nawaz Khan alias Margha vs The State etc2023 PHC 251, 2024 YLR 1986 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
- Naveed vs The State2023 YLR 1377 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-05Read full judgment →
- Naveed Daud vs The State2023 PCRLJ 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged transportation of narcotics. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt given material contradictions in witness testimony and the validity of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report prepared by an unqualified analyst. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that significant discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the handling of the Murasilla and the absence of mandatory police daily diaries created reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an FSL report issued by an analyst not qualified under Section 35 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is inadmissible. Crucially, the Court affirmed that allowing the prosecution to re-test samples to cure evidentiary defects would violate the principles of a fair trial and the adversarial system, as the court cannot assist the prosecution in filling lacunas. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Does the non-production of police daily diaries regarding the movement of the raiding party create reasonable doubt in a narcotics case?
- Is an FSL report admissible if the analyst was not qualified under Section 35 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Can an appellate court order the re-testing of narcotic samples to allow the prosecution to fill lacunas in its evidence?
- Does the failure to send samples to the FSL within the prescribed 72-hour period invalidate the chemical examiner's report?
- Nasir Deceased through Legal Heirs Muhammad Akram and others vs Muhammad Iqbal Deceased through legal heirs Mst. Riasat Begum and others2023 PHC 169, 2024 YLR 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
- Naseer Ahmad vs The State and another2023 YLR 1683 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the conviction under Section 302(b) was appropriate given the circumstances of the incident, which occurred inside the appellant's house during a heated altercation over a financial dispute. The Court observed that the prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent accounts, casting doubt on the exact manner of the occurrence, and noted that the appellant also sustained injuries during the incident. Finding that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment without premeditation, the Court held that the trial court misdirected itself in awarding the maximum sentence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 302(b) and substituted it with a conviction under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The principle laid down is that where an occurrence lacks premeditation and arises from a sudden altercation, a lenient view regarding the quantum of punishment is warranted.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when the incident occurred at the spur of the moment without premeditation?
- Does the presence of inconsistent testimony from prosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence of the crime warrant a reduction in sentence?
- Can a court substitute a conviction under Section 302(b) with Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the absence of premeditation?
- Naseem Khan vs The State2023 PHC 233, 2024 MLD 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-03Read full judgment →
- Naseeb Khan and others vs The State and another2023 YLR 520 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the trial court's refusal to adjourn criminal proceedings sine die pending the outcome of a related civil family suit. The petitioners were facing a complaint alleging illegal marriage (bigamy), while simultaneously, a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was pending between the complainant and one of the petitioners, wherein the existence of the marriage was disputed. The Court held that while criminal proceedings should not generally be stayed pending civil litigation, an exception applies where the criminal liability is fundamentally dependent upon the outcome of the civil dispute, and continuing the criminal trial risks grave injustice or conflicting decisions. The Court determined that because the alleged offence of bigamy hinges entirely on the validity of the prior marriage—a question currently before the Family Court—the criminal proceedings must be stayed to prevent irreparable prejudice to the accused. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the criminal proceedings to be adjourned sine die until the final adjudication of the family suit, granting liberty to revive the complaint thereafter.
Questions settled- Should criminal proceedings be stayed when the underlying criminal liability depends on the outcome of a pending civil suit?
- Does a criminal court have the authority to stay its proceedings pending the decision of a civil court in matters of overlapping jurisdiction?
- Is it appropriate to continue criminal proceedings for bigamy when the validity of the marriage is simultaneously being contested in a family court?
- Naimat Ullah vs The State and others2023 PHC 352 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
- Naik Awaz and another vs The State2023 YLR 1930 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a criminal revision seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the presence of eyewitnesses, the corroboration of the motive, the withholding of material evidence, and the reliability of the medical and circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the nexus of the appellants with the crime due to improbable eyewitness presence, lack of a fitness certificate for the injured complainant, withholding of a natural witness, failure to send crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and a weak motive. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants on the basis of benefit of doubt, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principles laid down include that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that withholding best evidence invokes an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to examine a natural eye-witness attract an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
- Does the absence of a medical fitness certificate for an injured complainant casting doubt on his orientation affect the credibility of the First Information Report?
- Whether the failure to send crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory weakens the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
- Nadeem Khan vs Maqbali Khan Khalil and 2 others2023 YLR 1719 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sardar Wali khan Carriage Contractor Village Zitoor, Post Office2023 PHC 139, 2024 PTD 201 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-15Read full judgment →
- M/s. Northern Bottling Company (Pvt.) Ltd vs The Appellate Tribunal InlandPTCL 2023 CL. 924, 2025 PTD 433 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →
- M/s. Apallo Plastic and Chemicals (Pvt) Ltd., Malakand vs Government of2023 PLJ Peshawar 125, 2024 PLD Peshawar 146, 2024 PTD 1133 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. A.K. Tariq Foundry vs Government of Pakistan and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
- M/s Test International vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary2023 PHC 181 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Shah Steel Industry and others vs Federation of Pakistan throueh2023 PHC 342, 2024 PTD 818 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
- M/s Red Co Enterprises vs Deputy Commissioner Ir & another2023 PHC 556, 2025 PTD 556 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-04Read full judgment →
- M/s M.K Steel Mills vs Collector of Customs, MCC Custom House, Peshawar2023 PHC 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-17Read full judgment →
- M/s Ittehad Customs Agency, Peshawar through Clearing Agent Asif Ali &2023 PHC 96 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Concrete Concepts (Pvt), Haripur & Others) vs Authority Under2023 PHC 20 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses eight connected writ petitions filed by M/s Concrete Concepts (Pvt) Ltd against orders passed by the Authority Under Payment of Wages, Haripur. The core legal question involved the legality of ex-parte orders and decisions rendered by the Authority without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, as well as the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013. The Peshawar High Court held that proceedings were not conducted in a proper legal manner, emphasizing that contested issues must be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and that the statutory appeal mechanism does not cover orders passed due to non-payment of costs, thereby rendering the writ petitions maintainable. The Court laid down the principle that the High Court's writ jurisdiction can be competently invoked when an alternative statutory remedy is not adequate or efficacious, and that parties should not be deprived of substantive legal rights on technical grounds. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded to the Authority for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act due to non-payment of costs is appealable under section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked when no efficacious alternate remedy is available under the statute?
- Is a party to a proceeding before the Wage Authority liable to be condemned or deprived of legal rights on mere technicalities?
- M/s CGGC-Descon Joint Venture Through Sajjad Haider Abidi, Lahore vs2023 PHC 72 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mustajab Ul Hassan vs The State2023 YLR 770 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the confiscation of his motorcar, which had been seized in connection with a narcotics case under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019, and subsequently declared unclaimed upon the acquittal of the accused. The core legal question was whether a vehicle could be confiscated without affording the owner or claimant an opportunity of being heard and without proving their knowledge of the offense, as mandated by statute. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court committed a legal error by declaring the vehicle unclaimed and ordering its confiscation without issuing notice to the claimant or inquiring into ownership despite a pending superdari application. The Court laid down that under sections 34A and 34B of the KP CNSA 2019, prior to confiscating any conveyance used in a narcotics offense, the prosecution or court must prove that the owner had knowledge of the offense, and any person claiming an interest must be given a mandatory opportunity of being heard within the stipulated timeframe.
Questions settled- Whether a vehicle can be confiscated as unclaimed property under the KP Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019 without issuing notice to a claimant who has filed an application for superdari?
- Is it mandatory to prove that the owner of a vehicle had knowledge of the narcotics offense before the vehicle is ordered to be confiscated?
- Does the wrong citation of a legal provision in a memo of appeal debar an appellant from seeking a statutory remedy?
- What is the procedure required under section 34B of the KP Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019 for making confiscation of seized articles when the accused is acquitted?
- Musawar Gul vs Director General (Admin) Directorate General Health2023 PHC 490 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Musadiq vs The State2023 PHC 167 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
- Musa Khan Shinwari s/o Aman Khan, resident of Nangarhar Afghanistan vs2023 PHC 594, 2024 YLR 1838 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses appeals against convictions and sentences under Section 9(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019. The appellants were intercepted by Customs officials at Torkham Terminal (an international customs frontier) carrying large quantities of narcotics from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Although initial FIRs were registered under the federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, the trial court tried and convicted them under the provincial 2019 Act. The core legal question was whether narcotic seizures at a customs border frontier fall under the provincial Act or the federal Act of 1997. The High Court held that under Section 59 of the provincial Act of 2019, the federal Act was repealed only for intra-provincial activities. For inter-provincial or international smuggling at federal customs frontiers, the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 remains fully applicable. The High Court set aside the convictions and remanded the cases for a de novo trial under the 1997 Act.
Questions settled- Whether narcotics seized at an international customs frontier are subject to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 or the federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does Section 59 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 repeal the federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for offences committed at customs frontiers?
- What is the effect of trying an accused under provincial narcotics legislation when the offence fell under federal legislative jurisdiction at a customs frontier?
- Murad Ali vs The State etc.2023 PHC 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-13Read full judgment →
- Murad Ali Khan & another vs Sarwar Khan & 40 others2023 PHC 100, 2024 YLR 1803 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muqarrab Khan etc vs Haji Guli Shah etc2023 PHC 484 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muqadar Khan vs The State and 01 Other2023 PHC 9, 2024 PCRLJ 229 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing hurt. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded as a Murasila, the applicability of the doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens regarding the cause of death, and the burden of proof for a plea of self-defense. The Court held that the dying declaration, being straightforward and verified by an injured witness, constituted substantive evidence despite being recorded by a Levies official. The Court rejected the appellant's plea of self-defense, noting that the appellant provided inconsistent versions of the incident and failed to discharge the burden of proof under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the death was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained, dismissing the application of Novus Actus Interveniens. Consequently, the conviction and sentences were maintained, and the revision petition regarding the quantum of sentence was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration recorded in a Murasila by a police official be treated as a substantive piece of evidence?
- Does the failure to specifically mention the term 'dying declaration' during an examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate its use as evidence?
- Under what conditions does the doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens apply to break the causal link between an injury and the subsequent death of a victim?
- When does the burden of proof shift to the accused to establish a plea of private defense under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Munir Gul & others vs Jehanzeb & others2023 PHC 506, 2024 MLD 1715 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muneer Ahmed vs Galyat Development Authority and another2023 CLC 1093 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muneer Ahmed vs Galiyat Development Authority2023 PHC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muneeb Hassan vs The State and another2023 YLR 2462 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a revision petition for sentence enhancement and an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt given the interested nature of the witnesses, the lack of independent corroboration, and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, noting that the site plan and the age gap between the witnesses and the deceased made their alleged gathering for gossip improbable. Furthermore, the failure to send crime empties for forensic analysis and the exaggerated implication of multiple accused in a crime likely committed by one person rendered the evidence unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition and the appeal against the co-accused’s acquittal, reaffirming the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of closely related witnesses in a case of blood feud requires independent corroboration?
- Does the failure to send crime empties to the forensic laboratory for analysis render the recovery evidence doubtful?
- Can an accused be convicted solely on ocular evidence when the prosecution's narrative of the occurrence is inherently improbable?
- Is the abscondance of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction when the substantive evidence against them has been disbelieved?
- Mumtaz son of Munawar Khan, r/o Suhbat Kalay Zando Banda Risalpur,2023 PHC 24 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mumtaz and another vs The State through A.A.G and2023 PHC 534 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
- Multan Shah and 2 others vs Vice-Chancellor University of Malakand and 22023 PLC (C.S.) 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, former Class-IV contract employees of the University of Malakand whose services were later regularized, filed a writ petition seeking payment of pension after their retirement upon reaching superannuation. The core legal question was whether their initial contract/temporary service could be counted towards the minimum qualifying service for the grant of pension under the applicable Service Pension Statutes of the University of Malakand and the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. The Peshawar High Court held that since the University's Service Statutes did not contain any special rule defining qualifying service or excluding temporary service, Rule 5 of the Service Statutes made the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 applicable mutatis mutandis. Consequently, under Rule 2.3 of the Pension Rules, temporary and officiating service followed by confirmation must be counted towards the total length of service for pensionary benefits. The court laid down the principle that subordinate legislation and service statutes must be interpreted harmoniously, and in the absence of conflicting provisions in university statutes, general pension rules permitting the counting of temporary service towards qualifying service shall apply.
Questions settled- Whether contract or temporary service rendered prior to regularization can be counted towards the minimum qualifying service for pension under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
- Do the Service Pension Statutes of the University of Malakand exclude the application of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 regarding the computation of qualifying service?
- What is the legal effect of headings and sub-headings in the interpretation of service statutes and subordinate legislation?
- Mukhtar Muhammad Khan vs The Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University2023 PHC 80 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services as a Chemistry Teacher at Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University and the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal. The petitioner, who was on probation, was terminated for unauthorized absence following his involvement in a criminal case. The core legal questions were whether a probationer could be terminated without a regular inquiry and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Court held that the termination was 'simpliciter' based on admitted unauthorized absence, which did not necessitate a regular inquiry or show-cause notice, as no disputed facts existed. Furthermore, the Court found the petition suffered from significant laches, noting the petitioner's delay in seeking legal remedy after his termination and the inconsistencies in his claims regarding correspondence with the university. The Court affirmed that while a probationer is entitled to notice if termination is punitive, termination for simple unauthorized absence does not require a full-fledged inquiry. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Can a probationer be terminated from service without a regular inquiry when the absence from duty is admitted?
- Does the termination of a probationer for unauthorized absence require the issuance of a show-cause notice?
- Is a writ petition challenging termination of service barred by laches if filed after a significant delay?
- Mukaram Khan vs Haji Bacha Khan and others2023 PHC 462 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mujib Rehman s/o Jaffar Khan vs Saeed Khan s/o Abdul Hadi, The Stat2023 PHC 428 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhslmmad Yasin and four others vs Local Government through Secretary2023 PHC 227, 2024 CLC 493 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
- Muhobbat Shah etc vs Saleem Shah etc2023 PHC 524, 2024 YLR 2820 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs The State through A.A.G. and another2023 YLR 2237 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning his identification and alleged participation in the crime. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that a key witness, who did not know the appellant by name, failed to participate in a formal identification parade, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the court emphasized that corroboratory evidence, such as the recovery of a weapon or vehicle, cannot be considered in isolation to sustain a conviction when the primary ocular evidence is not confidence-inspiring. The court reaffirmed the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the court noting that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Is a formal identification parade required when a witness identifies an accused they did not previously know?
- Can corroboratory evidence alone sustain a conviction when the primary ocular evidence is unreliable?
- Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
- Muhammad Zaman alias Kotay vs The State and another2023 YLR 456 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant material contradictions between the First Information Report and the testimony provided by eye-witnesses during the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court observed that the complainant had drastically altered her version of events, including her location during the occurrence and the specific roles attributed to the accused, rendering her testimony unreliable. Emphasizing that evidence in capital cases must be unimpeachable, the Court ruled that witnesses who lack respect for truth and frequently change their accounts are unworthy of credence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle that when the primary eye-witness account is disbelieved and no corroborating evidence exists, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant's testimony at trial materially contradicts the version provided in the First Information Report?
- Is the testimony of an eye-witness who frequently changes their account of the occurrence worthy of judicial credence?
- What is the evidentiary standard required for eye-witness testimony in capital cases?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the eye-witness account necessitate the acquittal of the accused when no other corroborating evidence exists?