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.
- Amir Zada and another vs Jafar Shah and others2023 PHC 566, 2024 YLR 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
- Amir Sohail vs Govt. Of K.P.K and others2023 PHC 243, 2023 CLC 1732, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1339 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, concerns the petitioner's challenge to his non-appointment as a Primary School Teacher (PST). The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition regarding the same subject matter, which he withdrew without seeking or obtaining permission from the court to file a fresh petition. The core legal question is whether the doctrine of withdrawal simplicitor, as governed by the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, bars the institution of a subsequent petition on the same cause of action. The court held that the withdrawal of the previous petition without express permission to file a fresh one precludes the petitioner from re-litigating the same subject matter. The court affirmed that where a suit or petition is withdrawn without leave to file a new one, the bar against instituting a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action is absolute and conclusive, rendering the instant petition not maintainable.
Questions settled- Does the withdrawal of a writ petition without seeking permission to file a fresh one bar the institution of a subsequent petition on the same cause of action?
- Is a writ petition governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the withdrawal of suits?
- What is the legal effect of an order dismissing a petition as 'withdrawn' when no permission to file a fresh petition was requested or granted?
- Amir Rawan and others vs Manzaray and others2023 YLR 2281 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-03Read full judgment →
- Amir Mehmood vs The State and another2023 PHC 54, 2024 YLR 309 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
- Amir Badshah vs The State, Rahim Badshah2023 PHC 388 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-17Read full judgment →
- Ameer Hamza vs Govt: of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2023 PHC 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
- Altaf Saeed, Et (Bps-14) Working Folks Grammar Higher Secondary School, Karak and 16 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 3 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1262 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions and contempt applications filed by teachers and staff members of schools under the Workers Welfare Board, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seeking reliefs including regularization, promotion, salary arrears, and challenge to terminations. The core legal question was whether the services of teachers and teaching staff of the Workers Welfare Board are governed by the statutory Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997. The court held that the 1997 Rules apply exclusively to the administrative and ministerial, engineering, and finance and accounts cadres, and do not cover teaching staff. Consequently, in the absence of statutory rules governing their terms and conditions of service, the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant, and constitutional petitions under Article 199 are not maintainable for service disputes. The court laid down the principle that employees of autonomous bodies lacking statutory service protection cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for service matters and must seek remedies before the appropriate alternative forum.
Questions settled- Whether the services of teachers and teaching staff of the Workers Welfare Board are governed by the Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997?
- Can employees whose service terms are not governed by statutory rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- What is the legal nature of the employment relationship in the absence of statutory service rules?
- Does the mere absence of statutory rules entitle an employee of an autonomous body to seek service regularization through a writ petition?
- Almir vs Mst. Banglow Bibi and others2023 YLR 2003 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-26Read full judgment →
- Ali Azim Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Muhammad vs The State2023 MLD 643 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Akhtar Muhammad, who was charged under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, for the alleged possession of 2000 grams of opium and 900 grams of ice recovered from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and the circumstances of the recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that significant contradictions between the FIR and the Register No. 19 regarding the date of recovery cast doubt on the prosecution's case, the benefit of which must be extended to the accused at the bail stage. Furthermore, the court noted the lack of independent witnesses and the implausibility of the recovery method from the vehicle's fuel tank. The court established the principle that material contradictions in recovery documents and the absence of independent witnesses in narcotics cases create sufficient grounds for further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between the FIR and the police register regarding the date of recovery entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt at the bail stage?
- Is the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle's fuel tank without explanation of the vehicle's operability create a debatable question for trial?
- Akhtar Ali vs The State and another2023 PHC 221 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali vs Hidayat Ullah2023 CLD 1209, 2023 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
- Ajmal and 5 others vs The State through Advocate General, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 4 others2023 PCRLJ 1768 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the FIR was mala fide, fabricated, and based on ulterior motives, citing a prior medical report dispute. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an FIR during the investigation stage when alternative remedies exist. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioners should first exhaust the remedy of seeking acquittal before the trial court under Section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed that police possess the statutory duty and right under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to investigate cognizable offences, and quashing an investigation prematurely would constitute an unwarranted interference with police functions.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash an FIR under its inherent jurisdiction while the police investigation is still ongoing?
- Is the remedy of acquittal under Section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available to an accused before the trial court?
- Does the police have a statutory right to investigate a cognizable offence under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ahmad Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others2023 MLD 940, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 791 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a set of connected writ petitions filed by the legal heirs of members of the Khassadar Force and Levy Sepoy who embraced martyrdom due to a roadside bomb explosion while escorting polio workers during the Polio Eradication Campaign. The core legal question concerns the discriminatory treatment by the government in paying a reduced compensation of Rs. 300,000 to the petitioners compared to the standard compensation of Rs. 3 million paid to other Shuhada, under the pretext that the deceased were engaged on contract or proxy basis rather than as regular government servants. The Peshawar High Court held that creating such distinct classes of martyrs among those who laid down their lives while performing sensitive official duties is unfair and unjustified. The Court allowed the petitions, directing the respondents to pay the balance compensatory amount of Rs. 2.7 million to the legal heirs of each deceased within two months. The key principle laid down is that state authorities must display fairness in policy implementation and cannot arbitrarily discriminate in granting compensation to personnel who sacrifice their lives in the line of duty.
Questions settled- Whether the government can create distinct classes of martyrs to deny full compensation to contract or proxy security personnel killed in the line of duty?
- Are the legal heirs of Khassadar and Levy personnel entitled to the same compensation package as regular government servants when martyred during official duties?
- Whether state authorities are bound to act with fairness when framing and implementing policies affecting the rights of citizens?
- Ahmad Kamal Alias Kamal Khan and another vs State and 2 others2023 YLR 1625 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder under Section 302(b)/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given significant inconsistencies in the ocular account, the medical evidence, and the investigation process. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The judgment highlights that the ocular testimony was unreliable due to contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, the inability to identify assailants in the dark, and the lack of blood trails. Furthermore, the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version of events, and the delay in reporting the incident, combined with the unexplained delay in sending forensic evidence to the laboratory, created reasonable doubt. The court reaffirmed that when the prosecution fails to establish its case, abscondence of the accused cannot be used to secure a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Can abscondence of an accused be used to secure a conviction if the prosecution fails to establish its case through other evidence?
- Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the place of occurrence provide grounds for acquittal?
- Is the prosecution required to explain a significant delay in sending recovered crime scene evidence to a forensic laboratory?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive for a crime impact the overall credibility of the case?
- Aftab Alam and another vs Secretary Home & Tribal Affairs, Govt. of KPK, Peshawar and others2023 PHC 265, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 1, 2024 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
- Afsar Khan vs The State & another2023 PHC 82, 2024 YLR 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
- Afsar Khan & others vs Mst. Ghulam Bibi through Legal Heirs & others2023 PHC 56, 2024 MLD 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
- Afsar Ali and others vs Kohistanay through LRs and others2023 CLC 1985 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
- Afrasiab Khan vs The State etc2023 PHC 261, 2024 MLD 180 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-16Read full judgment →
- Adnan Gul and another vs The State2023 YLR 289 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the alleged recovery of 20 kg of heroin. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of secondary evidence for a misplaced FSL report, the legality of conducting proceedings at the police station rather than the spot of recovery, and the sufficiency of prosecution witnesses in narcotics cases carrying capital or life sentences. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inadmissible duplicate FSL report, unexplained failure to conduct proceedings at the spot, and non-production of material witnesses. The court laid down the principle that a duplicate FSL report cannot be relied upon as secondary evidence without proper foundation and permission, and that in cases carrying capital punishment or life imprisonment, the prosecution must produce maximum available witnesses to ensure proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can a duplicate FSL report be admitted and relied upon as secondary evidence without formal permission and proof of the original's loss?
- Does failure to scribe the murasila at the spot of recovery and instead bringing the accused and vehicle to the police station create doubt in the prosecution case?
- Is it mandatory for the prosecution to produce maximum available witnesses in cases carrying capital punishment or imprisonment for life?
- Whether the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt through concrete and confidence-inspiring evidence for a conviction to be sustained?
- Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), at Model Custom, Collaborate, Abdara Road, Peshawar & two others vs Hidayat Ullah S_O Zarab Din and one other2023 PHC 78, 2024 PTD 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
- Adbul Waheed vs The State2023 PHC 526 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Abidullah vs The State2023 YLR 2629 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences handed down by the trial court under sections 302(b), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision for enhancement of sentences. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of a negative forensic science laboratory report regarding weapon matching, and the sustainability of joint liability under an unlawful assembly where specific roles for simple injuries overlapped. The Peshawar High Court held that direct, creditworthy testimony of injured eyewitnesses sufficiently establishes guilt for murder even when ballistic reports are negative, as expert evidence remains purely confirmatory. However, where multiple accused are charged with minor, unspecified injuries without clear attribution of specific blows, the principle of benefit of the doubt requires acquittal. The court laid down that negative ballistic findings do not undermine a prosecution case firmly anchored in direct ocular evidence, and that the acquittal of co-accused for non-specific simple injuries does not vitiate the conviction of a principal offender whose role is distinctly proven.
Questions settled- Whether a negative forensic science laboratory report regarding weapon matching is fatal to a prosecution case otherwise established through direct ocular testimony?
- Can the acquittal of co-accused charged with non-specific simple injuries on the basis of benefit of the doubt serve as a ground for the acquittal of the principal accused whose specific role in a murder is proven by trustworthy eyewitnesses?
- Whether members of an assembly can be convicted under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the occurrence arose suddenly out of a trivial altercation without premeditation?
- Is expert medical and ballistic evidence considered substantive proof or merely confirmatory and corroborative in nature?
- Abidullah vs State2023 PHC 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
- Abid Sherani vs Tahir Sherani through Legal Heirs and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wasi vs The State2023 YLR 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a juvenile, sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 4.800 KGs of heroin and 4.600 KGs of charas. The contraband was recovered from a 'baitak' near the petitioner's house, not from his personal possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, being a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense, was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and his age. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he was 13 years old at the time of the occurrence, had no prior criminal record, and the recovery was not from his direct possession. The Court emphasized that incarceration is detrimental to a juvenile's development and poses a risk of exposing the child to hardened criminals. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, with the Court directing the petitioner's elder brothers to supervise him to prevent his involvement in future criminal activities, while clarifying that these observations were tentative and should not influence the trial court's final decision.
Questions settled- Is a juvenile entitled to bail when the alleged narcotics recovery was not from his personal possession?
- Does the incarceration of a juvenile in a narcotics case warrant the grant of bail to prevent exposure to criminal elements?
- Can the age of an accused as determined by official documents like Form-B be a determining factor for bail in narcotics cases?
- Abdul Rahim etc. vs Mst. Sitara Shaheen2023 PLJ Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadoos and others vs P.H.A. and others2023 CLC 487 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir alias Sohbat Khan and others vs Wazir Hasan and others2023 MLD 1688 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Manan and others vs Bakhti Ali and others2023 PHC 225, 2023 CLC 1839 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-15Read full judgment →
- Zulqamain alias Karnali s/o Wall Khan, r/o Allah Yar Khel Nowshera Kalan2022 PHC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-25Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs Zulifat Shah2022 PHC 324 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
- Ziarat Gul vs Mst. Yasmin and another2022 PHC 606 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-21Read full judgment →
- Zeeshan Hafeez vs State & another2022 PHC 268 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
- Zeeshan alias Shanay vs The State2022 PHC 306 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-04Read full judgment →
- ZarJamil and Others vs Zafar Sani and Others2022 PHC 624 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
- Zalwanoor vs The State2022 PHC 514, 2024 YLR 383 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-02Read full judgment →
- Zakir Ullah and others vs District Health Officer, Swat At Gulkada Saidu2022 PLC (C.S.) 886 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a series of writ petitions filed by individuals aggrieved by the non-consideration of their applications for government employment under quotas reserved for children of retired, deceased, or medically incapacitated civil servants. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate these recruitment grievances directly. Following the Court’s intervention regarding the lack of an internal dispute resolution mechanism, the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa established departmental Grievance Redressal Committees. Consequently, the Court held that these petitions were premature. The ratio decidendi establishes that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked until an aggrieved party has exhausted all available, efficacious, and adequate departmental remedies. The Court directed that the pending petitions be treated as representations before the newly constituted Grievance Redressal Committees. The judgment reinforces the administrative law principle that courts should not bypass internal departmental forums unless there is an express lack of jurisdiction, mala fide, or a situation perpetuating manifest injustice.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without first exhausting available departmental remedies?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the matter has not been finalized at the departmental level?
- Does the existence of a departmental grievance redressal mechanism preclude immediate judicial intervention in recruitment disputes?
- Zair Shah and 6 others vs Nooran Shah and 9 others2022 YLR 2160 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
- Zaidar Khan & Others vs Fazal Karim & Others2022 PHC 578 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
- Zahidullah vs The State and others2022 P Cr. L J 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Karak, convicting the appellant under section 324 and section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for effective firing and causing firearm injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when ocular testimony contradicted the physical evidence, medical report, and site-plan. The Peshawar High Court held that discrepancies between the seat of the injury, the site-plan, and the statements of prosecution witnesses created serious doubts regarding the manner in which the incident occurred, warranting the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The court laid down the principle that where ocular testimony is uncorroborated by or inconsistent with medical evidence and physical features of the crime scene as depicted in the site-plan, the prosecution case collapses, and the accused must be acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution can sustain a conviction under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the seat of injury and the site-plan contradict the ocular account of the complainant?
- Does an inconsistency between the medical evidence and the manner of occurrence described by eye-witnesses entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Whether the failure of the investigating officer to associate independent witnesses and verify preliminary facts weakens the prosecution's case?
- Zahid Ullah vs Election Commission of Pakistan2022 PHC 222, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
- Zahid Khan vs The State2022 PHC 328 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-28Read full judgment →
- Zahid Khan vs The State and others2022 PHC 422 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
- Zafarullah alias Zafrol vs The State through A.A.G. and 4 others2022 PCRLJ 1098 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence handed down by the Anti-Terrorism Court under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and the Arms Ordinance 1965, while the State sought enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question involved the legality of the trial and conviction when a cross-case arising from the same incident had not been brought on record or tried together. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of vital evidence and documents pertaining to the cross-case, a fair and just determination cannot be made, necessitating a remand. The court laid down the principle that for doing substantial justice in counter-versions or cross-cases of the same occurrence, all essential documents and witnesses of the cross-case must be brought on record and examined by the trial court to avoid rendering a judgment in a vacuum.
Questions settled- What is the legal consequence when a trial court decides a criminal case without bringing the relevant documents and evidence of a cross-case on record?
- Can an appellate court remand a criminal case to the trial court for recording additional evidence and examining witnesses from a cross-case?
- Is it incumbent upon the trial court and prosecution to bring on record all real facts and available material regarding a cross-case for a just decision?
- Zafar Khan & others, Qaimoos Khan & others, Aziz Ullah Khan & others_c089189a2022 PHC 658 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs The State2022 PHC 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
- Yasir khan son of Saadat Khan vs The State through Advocate General2022 PHC 242 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Yasir Iqbal vs The State2022 PHC 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-14Read full judgment →
- Wali Rehman vs The State2022 PHC 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
- Wajid Ali Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad and 13 others2022 CLC 1507 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-10Read full judgment →
- Wajid Ali Shah s/o Haji Noor Ali Khan r/o Nurar Tehsil & District Bannu vs2022 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-10Read full judgment →
- Waheed Ullah and others vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PHC 158, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 369, 2022 MLD 1529 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves writ petitions filed by Constables/Computer Operators and Head Constables questioning the rejection of their cases for upgradation and re-designation to BPS-16 by a Departmental Committee. The core legal question concerns whether denying the petitioners upgradation while granting the same to similarly placed colleagues violates the principle of equal protection of law and the provincial Upgradation Policy. The Peshawar High Court held that the rejection of the petitioners' cases was discriminatory and contrary to the Upgradation Policy, as they were similarly placed to other employees who had already been granted upgradation to BPS-16. The court ruled that employees performing identical duties with the same qualifications must be treated alike. The key legal principles laid down include the application of the equal protection of law, the prohibition of arbitrary classification among similarly situated government servants, and the binding nature of the government's Upgradation Policy requiring parity in pay scales.
Questions settled- Whether government employees performing identical duties and possessing the same qualifications can be denied upgradation when their similarly placed colleagues have been granted the same?
- Does the rejection of a request for upgradation without distinguishing the case from previously upgraded colleagues violate the principle of equal protection of law?
- Are provincial departments bound by the established Upgradation Policy to maintain parity in pay scales for identical posts?
- Zeshan Akbar vs The State2022 YLR 1380 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Zeshan Akbar, under Section 302(b), Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 19 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case was that the appellant had murdered his father and injured his brother by firearm shots in a joint house during early morning hours, with motive arising from previous quarrels and complaints. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eyewitnesses, the corroboration through medical and forensic evidence, and the availability of the defense of voluntary intoxication under Section 85 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitness testimonies of the injured brother and another inmate were trustworthy, corroborated by prompt reporting, medical evidence, and weapon recovery, and that voluntary consumption of intoxicants does not afford an exception to criminal liability under Section 85. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon in a criminal trial without independent corroboration?
- Does voluntary consumption of intoxicants exempt an accused from criminal liability under Section 85 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether a prompt first information report in a broad daylight occurrence involving closely related parties excludes the possibility of substitution?
- What is the evidentiary value of a crime weapon recovered on the pointation of the accused and matched by the forensic science laboratory?
- Umer Gul and another vs The State and another2022 PHC 236 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
- Umar Hayat vs The State, etc2022 PHC 106 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-04Read full judgment →
- Umar Ali son of Mazhar Ali r/o Village Pabini District Swabi vs The State2022 PHC 474, 2024 PCRLJ 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, along with a connected murder reference and a revision petition seeking compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant entered the complainant's shop at night and fatally shot the deceased due to a dispute over women folk. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from related eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of circumstantial evidence, the validity of a belated plea of alibi, and the mandatory nature of awarding compensation to legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries, was trustworthy and established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while the belated plea of alibi was an afterthought. The court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the death sentence, answered the murder reference in the affirmative, and allowed the revision petition to award compensation to the heirs. The key legal principles established are that close relationship alone does not render a witness interested in the absence of hostility, and that trial courts are statutorily mandated to award compensation under Section 544-A or record reasons for omitting to do so.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of close relatives can be discarded merely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of proven animosity?
- Does the failure of eyewitnesses to sustain injuries during a firearm attack render their presence at the crime scene doubtful?
- At what stage must a plea of alibi be raised, and what is the legal effect of a belated plea raised for the first time during a statement on oath?
- Is it mandatory for a trial court to award compensation to the legal heirs of a victim under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 upon conviction?
- Umair Kaleem and others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary, Health Department and others2022 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
- The State vs Waqar etc2022 PHC 284 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
- The State vs Sanobar2022 PHC 442 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
- The State vs Muhammad Shafiq2022 PHC 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
- The State vs Inayat ur Rehman2022 PHC 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
- Tasawar Iqbal & Others vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PHC 298, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1172 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by Junior Scale Stenographers, Senior Scale Stenographers, and Private Secretaries seeking the upgradation of their posts in accordance with a Provincial Assembly resolution and standing committee recommendations. The core legal questions involved whether civil servants can claim upgradation as a matter of right, whether successive upgradations are permissible under government policy, and whether employees with existing promotion channels and prior upgradations are entitled to further upgradation. The Peshawar High Court held that upgradation is designed to alleviate stagnation in isolated posts lacking promotion channels and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or granted successively where a proper promotion structure exists and previous upgradations have already been granted. The court established the key principles that upgradation is distinct from promotion, is governed strictly by policy to relieve stagnation, and cannot be granted by courts through constitutional jurisdiction in the presence of adequate promotion avenues and existing service rules.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim upgradation of a post as a matter of right?
- Whether successive upgradations of posts are permissible under the civil service upgradation policy?
- Is a civil servant entitled to upgradation when adequate channels of promotion already exist?
- Can the High Court direct the upgradation of posts under its constitutional jurisdiction when the competent authority and cabinet have refused the same in accordance with policy?
- Tariq Mahmood vs The State etc2022 PHC 132 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
- Tariq Hussain Shah vs Nadra through Chairman and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 255 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the respondent-Authority's refusal to regularize the petitioner’s service from his initial appointment date of 14.09.2000, seeking seniority and pay fixation from that date. The core legal questions were whether NADRA is a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the requested antedated seniority. The Court held that NADRA is a statutory body and its regulations are statutory in nature, thereby making the petition maintainable. However, on merits, the Court dismissed the petition. It held that the petitioner’s regularization and seniority were correctly determined in accordance with the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002, which exclude short-term contract periods from the definition of 'employee' and establish specific criteria for seniority. The key principle laid down is that statutory bodies performing public functions are 'persons' under Article 199, and regulations framed under a statute, when published and having broad efficacy, constitute statutory rules enforceable through writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Do the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002, constitute statutory rules of service?
- Can an employee claim seniority from the date of initial short-term contract appointment if the governing regulations exclude such periods from the definition of 'employee'?
- Taj Rasool vs Government of Khyber Pokhtunkhwa through Secretary2022 PHC 470 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs Mst. Khalida Bibi2022 PHC 556 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
- Taj Malook vs The State2022 PHC 572, 2024 MLD 82 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
- Tahir Mehmood Khan vs Muhammad Saleem & two others2022 PHC 392 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
- Syed Zanon Mian and 4 others vs Mst. Misslunisa2022 YLR 2252 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, which acquitted the appellants of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, while simultaneously ordering the restoration of possession of the complainant's property share. The core legal question was whether a trial court can order the restoration of possession under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, without recording a conviction against the accused. The High Court held that the trial court's judgment was legally inconsistent, as conviction is a sine qua non for ordering the restoration of possession under the Act. The Court emphasized that Section 8, read with subsections (2) and (3) of Section 3, requires a finding of guilt before such an order can be passed. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment for failing to comply with the statutory requirements and the principles of criminal procedure, remanding the case to the trial court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a trial court order the restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, without convicting the accused?
- Is conviction a necessary prerequisite for ordering the restoration of property under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Syed Shuja Haider etc vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc2022 PHC 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by Laboratory Assistants in the Higher Education Department seeking upgradation of their pay scale to bring it at par with Junior Clerks. The core legal question was whether Laboratory Assistants have a legal or fundamental right to claim upgradation equivalent to another cadre having different job descriptions, qualifications, and service structures, and whether upgradation can be claimed as a matter of right. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that upgradation is a policy matter falling within the discretion of the executive and is distinct from promotion, and that posts with distinct qualifications and responsibilities cannot be arbitrarily equalized under Article 25 of the Constitution. The key principles laid down are that upgradation is not a vested right of civil servants, cannot be claimed as a substitute for promotion without an applicable policy or structural necessity, and requires a valid classification where duties and qualifications differ.
Questions settled- Whether Laboratory Assistants can claim upgradation equivalent to the pay scale of Junior Clerks as a matter of right?
- Is upgradation of a post a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What is the distinction between promotion and upgradation in civil service matters?
- Can the High Court interfere in policy matters regarding the upgradation of government posts in the absence of discrimination?
- Syed Mehboob Shah vs Bakhtawar Shah2022 PHC 580 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
- Sultanat Khan and another vs Sadbar Khan and others2022 PHC 426 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
- Sultan Yousaf & others vs Muhammad Sherin & others2022 PHC 42, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 75, 2022 CLC 1690 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
- Suleman vs The State2022 PHC 58, 2022 MLD 1612 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9-D of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019, arising from the alleged recovery of 7028 grams of Charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt and whether the chain of custody for the narcotic samples was maintained. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions between witnesses regarding the recovery process, the vehicle's operation, and the site proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, noting a two-day delay and the absence of key witnesses who handled the evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that any break in the chain of custody or reasonable doubt regarding the recovery renders the conviction unsafe. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt in criminal cases is a right of the accused, not a matter of grace, and must be extended whenever the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does a break in the chain of custody or safe transmission of narcotic samples render a conviction unsafe?
- Is the prosecution required to explain a delay in sending recovered narcotics to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
- Does the failure to produce the best evidence available to the prosecution create an adverse presumption under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused as a matter of right when material contradictions exist in the prosecution's evidence?
- State vs Dilnawaz etc2022 PHC 480 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Said2022 PCRLJ 1560 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery of 12,000 grams of chars and 4,000 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the integrity of the investigation and the forensic evidence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the time and manner of the recovery, as witness testimonies were inconsistent. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the recovered samples to the laboratory. Additionally, the Forensic Science Laboratory report was deemed unreliable as it failed to specify the test protocols applied, violating established legal requirements. The Court reiterated the principle that the scope of interference in an acquittal is narrow, as the presumption of innocence is doubled, and the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for conviction.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody and transmission of recovered narcotics samples entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Is a Forensic Science Laboratory report admissible for conviction if it fails to specify the test protocols applied?
- What is the scope of appellate interference in a judgment of acquittal?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the time and place of recovery?
- State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Gul2022 PCRLJ 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, who was charged with the possession of 3045 grams of chars under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the narcotic samples and whether the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was admissible given procedural lapses. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples, noting a significant delay in delivery and the failure to examine the constable responsible for transporting the samples. Furthermore, the Court found the FSL report defective for lacking the requisite test protocols. Emphasizing that an acquittal grants the accused a double presumption of innocence, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required to invalidate the trial court's well-reasoned judgment. The decision reaffirms that strict adherence to chain-of-custody protocols and transparent forensic reporting is mandatory for conviction in narcotics cases.
Questions settled- Does a failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the forensic report inadmissible?
- Is a Forensic Science Laboratory report valid if it fails to specify the test protocols applied to the samples?
- What is the standard of evidence required to set aside an order of acquittal in a criminal case?
- Does the non-production of the official responsible for transporting narcotic samples to the laboratory create a fatal gap in the prosecution's chain of custody?
- State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Sajid2022 PHC 226 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- State Bank Of Pakistan through Chief Manager, Peshawar vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Rawalpindi and 5 others2022 PLD Peshawar 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the State Bank of Pakistan against the Federation of Pakistan and Cantonment authorities, challenging the levy and demand of property tax on properties owned and occupied by the petitioner within cantonment limits. The core legal question was whether the State Bank of Pakistan, as a statutory body performing sovereign central banking functions with its capital wholly held by the Federal Government, is entitled to exemption from property tax under Section 99(2)(f) of the Cantonment Act 1924 and Article 165 of the Constitution. The Peshawar High Court held that the State Bank of Pakistan, despite being a corporate body, performs sovereign functions of the Federal Government, making it merely the ostensible owner while true title vests in the Federal Government. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's properties are exempt from property tax, declaring the notices and recovery proceedings initiated by the Cantonment Boards to be illegal, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that state instrumentalities fulfilling sovereign functions with exclusive federal ownership and control enjoy constitutional immunity from provincial and local taxation under Article 165 of the Constitution and statutory exemptions under the Cantonment Act.
Questions settled- Whether the State Bank of Pakistan is exempt from the levy of property tax under Section 99(2)(f) of the Cantonment Act 1924?
- Does the State Bank of Pakistan enjoy immunity from taxation under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in respect of its properties?
- Whether a Cantonment Board has the legal authority to impose and collect property tax on properties vested in the Federal Government?
- Does the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction against unauthorized tax recovery proceedings?
- Sohail Ahmad vs The State and another2022 YLR 2210 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
- SNGPL vs Gul Hakeem2022 PHC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-24Read full judgment →
- Sher Wali vs The State2022 PHC 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
- Sher Daraz Khan son of Nawaz Khan, And four others, residents of erstwhile2022 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadar vs The State and another2022 PHC 534 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali vs Mst. Hafsa and others2022 PHC 420 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal Khan vs Noor Islam and others2022 PHC 258, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
- Shehzada Khan son of Khan Zada, r/o Wazir Dand Shah Kas Jamrud,2022 PHC 28 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shamshad Alam vs Ghazanfarullah Khan2022 PHC 440 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
- Shakir Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2022 PHC 204, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1387 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction against the respondents to appoint him to a post pursuant to the quota reserved for civil servants retired on medical grounds under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989. The petitioner's wife had been permanently invalidated and retired on medical grounds after serving as a Female Welfare Assistant. The core legal question was whether a husband/widower is entitled to be appointed under Rule 10(4) of the 1989 Rules upon the medical invalidation or death of his civil servant wife. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Rule 10(4) explicitly limits benefit eligibility to a child or the widow/wife of a civil servant. The Court held that the rules contain no scope for appointing a husband/widower under the medical invalidation or deceased employee quota.
Questions settled- Is a husband or widower entitled to employment under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989 when his civil servant wife retires on medical grounds or dies during service?
- Can a court extend the scope of a benefit provided under statutory service rules to categories of persons not explicitly included in the rules?
- Shakil Muhammad vs Vice Chancellor, University of Malakand at2022 PHC 416 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State2022 PHC 388 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant credibility issues of the investigation officer and the absence of corroborative evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts and inconsistencies, including the dismissal of the complainant/investigation officer for corruption, the failure to produce essential police station daily diaries, and the omission of register entries (Register 19 and 21) to prove the safe custody of the contraband. The Court emphasized that when the credibility of prosecution witnesses is dubious, independent corroboration is mandatory. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery in the manner alleged. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases, the prosecution must provide confidence-inspiring evidence; where material evidence is withheld or witnesses lack credibility, the benefit of the doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to produce police daily diaries regarding the departure and arrival of the raiding team creates a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Does the dismissal of an investigation officer for corruption and illegal gratification render his testimony unreliable without strong independent corroboration?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution abandons a material witness to the recovery memo?
- Is the non-production of Register 19 and Register 21 sufficient to create doubt regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics?
- Shahzada Mian Gul vs The State & others2022 PHC 570 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
- Shahid Murad; and Shah Khalid sons of Wazir Zada, Residents of Gumbat2022 PHC 22 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shah Rawan vs The State and another2022 YLR 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Shangla, convicting the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 15 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, along with a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular evidence, corroboration by medical and circumstantial evidence, and the effect of abscondence and motive in a case of sudden altercation arising from a land dispute. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the injured eye-witness, being consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon, was wholly reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court laid down the principle that the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased does not render their evidence unreliable unless a motive for false implication is established, and that minor irregularities in police investigation do not vitiate a trial unless they result in a miscarriage of justice. Both the appeal and the revision petition were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be classified as wholly reliable and acted upon without further corroboration?
- Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
- Can defects or irregularities in the police investigation vitiate a criminal trial in the absence of a miscarriage of justice?
- Is abscondence of an accused person considered a strong piece of corroborative evidence when coupled with direct and circumstantial evidence?
- Shah Nawaz Son of Dad Khan, R/O Balarzai Badh Ber Peshawar vs The2022 PHC 620 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan vs State & Another2022 PHC 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
- Shah Khalid vs The State2022 PHC 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
- Shah Hussain vs The State & another2022 PHC 466, 2024 PCRLJ 455 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder and related offenses, alongside a revision petition for sentence enhancement and an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the presence of the sole eye-witness at the scene of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the conviction could be sustained given the inconsistencies in the ocular evidence and the forensic reports. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the complainant at the crime scene, as the narrative of the occurrence was inherently improbable and inconsistent with the medical evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a significant delay in sending crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory destroyed the evidentiary value of those recoveries. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement and the appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, affirming that the prosecution must stand on its own evidence rather than relying on alleged admissions by defense counsel.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness whose presence at the scene is rendered improbable by medical evidence?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in sending crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of such recoveries?
- Is an accused in a criminal case bound by admissions made by their defense counsel during cross-examination?
- Can evidence recorded in a separate criminal case be taken into consideration when deciding the current case?