Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Inayatullah vs The State2019 PCRLJ 1392, 2019 PHC 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-25
  criminal appealocular evidencebenefit of doubtbelated witnessabscondencemotivemurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants under Section 302(b) and Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on ocular testimony, alleged motive, and recovery of weapons. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to the belated introduction of an eye-witness not named in the initial FIR, significant improvements in the complainant's testimony, and contradictions between the medical evidence and the ocular account. The Court further held that when a motive is alleged but not proven, it weakens the prosecution's case, and that abscondence alone cannot substitute for substantive evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that where the ocular account is unreliable and lacks the ring of truth, the entire prosecution structure fails, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness whose name was omitted from the initial crime report be relied upon as an eye-witness?
  • Does the failure to prove an alleged motive weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Is abscondence of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other substantive evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and matching forensic report suffice for conviction if the ocular testimony is disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs Mehboob Ellahi2020 CLC 1097, 2019 PHC 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-23Read full judgment →
• Inamullah Marwat vs Chairman NAB etc2019 MLD 1242, 2019 PLJ PESHAWAR 190, 2019 PHC 132 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Khan vs The State2019 PHC 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
• Imran and another vs The State and another2019 PHC 398 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ullah Khan vs Vice Chancellor, Gomal University, D.I.Khan And 072019 CLC 1330, 2019 PHC 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Muhammad alias Ijaz Khan vs The State, etc2019 MLD 882, 2019 PHC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ihsanullah alias Ahsan Ali Sunny vs The state etc2019 PHC 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Khan vs Haris Khan and others2019 PHC 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Jaber Ullah vs Said Nawab etc2020 YLR 515, 2019 PHC 208 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ibrarullah son of Rasheed Khan vs The State etc2019 PHC 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-15
  criminal appealsodomymurderretracted confessionvoluntariness of confessioncircumstantial evidencemedical evidenceschizophreniaunsoundness of mind
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 377 and Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing sodomy and the subsequent murder of an 11-year-old child, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, the sufficiency of circumstantial and medical corroboration, and the applicability of the defence of legal insanity due to schizophrenia under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court held that the appellant's judicial confession was voluntary, duly recorded in compliance with Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and fully corroborated by consistent medical evidence, FSL reports, and incriminating recoveries. The court further held that mere omission to raise a plea of mental illness at the time of the occurrence or arrest, coupled with a lack of contemporaneous medical proof, precludes the benefit of Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a capital conviction if corroborated by independent circumstantial and medical evidence?
  • Whether delay in recording a judicial confession renders it involuntary under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a subsequent suspension of trial due to mental illness automatically establish the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the time of the offence?
  • Whether discrepancies in police investigation are sufficient to discredit an otherwise established prosecution case supported by positive forensic and medical reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Hizbullah vs The State and another2019 YLR 2357 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-17
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayfundamental rightspeedy trialremandincarcerationmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner was accused in a murder case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 15 of the Arms Ordinance, and had previously been convicted, but his conviction was set aside by the High Court and the case remanded for retrial. The core legal question is whether an accused who has spent a prolonged period in detention, partly as a convict prior to remand and partly as an under-trial prisoner, is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay is not attributable to him. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right since the total period of continuous incarceration exceeded the statutory threshold and the delay was not occasioned by the defense. The court established the principle that the entire period spent in jail, whether as a convict or an under-trial prisoner, is countable when computing statutory delay for bail purposes, and that an expeditious trial is a fundamental right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period spent in jail as a convict prior to the remand of a case is countable towards statutory delay when deciding a subsequent post-arrest bail petition?
  • Can post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be refused on hyper-technical grounds?
  • Is an accused entitled to statutory bail as a matter of right when the delay in the conclusion of the trial is not occasioned by any act or omission on his part?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Wali vs Land Acquisition Collector & others2020 CLC 1202, 2021 KLR Revenue Cases 10, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 55, 2019 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali and 15 others vs Muzaffar Kahn (deceased) through L.Rs.2019 YLR 1729 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• Hashim vs State2020 P Cr. L J 895, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1379, 2019 PHC 292 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10
  rapebenefit of doubthostile witnessdelay in FIRmedical evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Court Abbottabad convicting the appellants under Sections 376, 342, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rape and facilitation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecutrix's uncorroborated testimony, the significance of medical evidence regarding an old hymenal tear and delayed examination, the effect of an eyewitness turning hostile, and the explanation for an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to material contradictions, lack of corroborative physical or medical evidence, unexplained delay in reporting, and the failure of the prosecution to substantiate the essential elements of the crime. The court established that a conviction in heinous offenses requires reliable, unimpeachable corroboration and proof beyond reasonable doubt, and where material loopholes exist, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape when medical evidence contradicts the version of the occurrence?
  • Does a delay of several days in lodging the First Information Report, without reliable explanation, prove fatal to the prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of the statement of a witness declared hostile, and can it be relied upon without corroboration?
  • Can a conviction for abetment or facilitation stand when the primary charge against the principal offender is not proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Haneefullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLC (C.S.) 515, 2019 PHC 306 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-04
  writ petitionservice matterseducational qualificationcut-off dateeligibilitypublic appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed before the Peshawar High Court challenges the refusal of the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Primary School Teacher (PST) despite securing high merit, on the ground that he did not possess the mandatory Bachelor Degree by the cut-off date specified in the advertisement. The core legal question concerns whether a candidate who acquires the requisite educational qualification after the application cut-off date, but prior to the interview or final appointment, can be considered eligible for public employment. The Court held that if a candidate has not passed or acquired the essential qualification by the cut-off date for receiving applications, they are ineligible for the post, distinguishing cases where the qualification was already attained but formal certification was delayed. The Court laid down the principle that eligibility is strictly tied to possessing the essential qualification by the stipulated cut-off date unless the candidate had already passed the examination by that date and only formal issuance of the degree was delayed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who acquires the essential educational qualification after the cut-off date for receiving applications is eligible for appointment?
  • Does a candidate become eligible for a post if they pass the required examination after the application deadline but before the date of the interview?
  • Can an appointing authority consider a candidate who failed to meet the threshold of eligibility on the cut-off date set out in the advertisement?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ullah Qureshi vs The State2020 PCr. L J 284, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 664, 2019 PHC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-20
  superdaritemporary custody of vehiclecontrol of narcotic substancesinnocent ownerejusdem generisconfiscation of conveyanceinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge dismissing the appellant's application for the superdari (temporary custody) of a truck involved in a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether an innocent owner of a vehicle, who is not an accused or connected to the crime, can be deprived of the temporary custody of their transport until the conclusion of the trial under Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that the phrase "any private individual" in the proviso to Section 74 must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the preceding words (accused, associate, or relative) and does not include an innocent owner lacking any nexus with the offense. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order and directed that the vehicle be released on superdari to the appellant, establishing the principle that an innocent owner unaware of the illicit use of their property is entitled to its interim custody pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an innocent owner of a vehicle who is not an accused can be deprived of its temporary custody pending trial under Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the phrase "any private individual" in the proviso to Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 include an innocent vehicle owner having no nexus with the crime?
  • Is an owner of a conveyance entitled to its return or interim custody if they had no conscious knowledge of its use in narcotics trafficking?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Malik Adnan Khan vs Akram Khan Durrani and 9 others2019 CLC 570 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-20Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali vs The Managing Director, Bank of Khyber2019 PHC 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-18
  writ jurisdictionstatutory rulesBank of Khybermaster and servantmisconductdisciplinary proceedingsright of audienceback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a larger bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court addressing the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of writ petitions against the Bank of Khyber under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the employees' service rules of the Bank of Khyber are statutory or non-statutory in nature, determining whether the bank qualifies as a 'person' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the province. The court held that the Bank of Khyber, established under the Bank of Khyber Act 1991 where the provincial government holds majority shares, is a statutory body and that its Human Resource Manual and service rules—framed under section 24 of the parent statute—are statutory rules having broad efficacy complementary to the parent statute. Consequently, the bank is amenable to the constitutional writ jurisdiction. On merits, where employees were dismissed for alleged misconduct without observing the mandatory procedure of issuing show-cause notices, conducting inquiries, or granting a personal hearing under the service rules, the court set aside the dismissal orders, directed reinstatement without back benefits, and permitted fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service rules of the Bank of Khyber are statutory in nature?
  • Is the Bank of Khyber amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an employee of a statutory body be dismissed for misconduct without observing the mandatory procedure of show-cause notice and personal hearing prescribed under the service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Kalu etc vs Muhammad Bakhsh etc2019 PHC 44 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-17Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Kalu and others vs Muhammad Bakhsh and others2019 YLR 1523 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-17
  consolidation proceedingsmutationfraudulent mutationjurisdiction of civil courtconcurrent findingscivil revisiontransfer during consolidation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed and the respondents' counter-suit for declaration regarding ownership of the suit property was decreed. The core legal questions involved the validity of mutations attested during pending consolidation proceedings without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer, the burden of proof regarding fraudulent mutations, and the jurisdiction of civil courts to examine mutations vitiated by fraud notwithstanding the bar under the consolidation laws. The Peshawar High Court held that mutations attested during consolidation proceedings without the mandatory prior sanction of the Consolidation Officer under Section 24 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, are invalid and void. The Court further affirmed that civil courts of plenary jurisdiction retain the inherent authority to examine and set aside revenue mutations procured through fraud or misrepresentation, as such fraudulent acts fall outside the exclusive domain of consolidation authorities. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mutations attested during consolidation proceedings without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer are valid under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to examine and set aside revenue mutations attested through fraud during consolidation proceedings despite the bar under Section 26 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
  • What is the burden of proof on a beneficiary when a revenue mutation is challenged as forged and fraudulent?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a suit for declaration against the sanctioning of a disputed revenue mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Sher Abat Khan vs Mumtaz Ali Khan & others2020 [M] C L R 1301, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 83, 2019 MLD 1991, 2019 PHC 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-22Read full judgment →
• Gul Munir vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of States and Frontier Regions (Safron), Islamabad and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 645 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-01
  Federal Levies ForceCivil ServantService TribunalWrit JurisdictionTerms and Conditions of ServiceArticle 212Compulsory Retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Federal Levies Force, challenged the Federal Levies Force (Services) Rules, 2016, arguing that the amendments adversely altered their terms and conditions of service, resulting in compulsory retirement. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate these service-related grievances or if the petitioners, as civil servants, were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Relying on the criteria established by the Apex Court, the Court held that the duties of the Federal Levies Force—including maintaining law and order and protecting government installations—have a direct nexus with the affairs of the Federation. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioners are civil servants and that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate their service terms. The key principle laid down is that where a force performs functions connected with the affairs of the Federation, its members constitute civil servants, and their service disputes must be resolved exclusively by the Federal Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Federal Levies Force considered civil servants under the law?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the terms and conditions of service for Federal Levies Force employees?
  • What is the effect of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 on the jurisdiction of the High Court regarding service matters of civil servants?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues arising out of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Alam Khan etc vs Nadir Khan etc2019 PLD Peshawar 202, 2019 PHC 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Gohar Ayub vs The State etc2019 PCRLJ 1260, 2019 PHC 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-06
  quashment of FIRpublic servantPrevention of Corruption Actconstitutional jurisdictionJustice of Peacecriminal procedurejurisdiction of police
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an FIR registered against him under sections 468, 419, 420, 471, 409, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an order by a Justice of Peace under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the local police lacked jurisdiction to register an FIR against a public servant when the matter was already subject to proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 does not grant public servants immunity from other criminal proceedings. Relying on section 5(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and section 8 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961, the Court affirmed that the Act of 1947 is not in derogation of other laws. Furthermore, the Court held that it should not exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to resolve factual controversies or quash an FIR when a prima facie case exists, as this would bypass the ordinary trial process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 grant public servants immunity from criminal proceedings initiated under other laws?
  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR based on disputed factual allegations?
  • Does the registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 preclude the local police from registering a separate FIR for the same incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadar others vs Patwari Halqa & others2019 CLC 1992, 2019 PHC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Atif Farooq2019 YLR 2464 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ghufran Shah vs Farid Khan ASI & others2019 PCRLJ 1346, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 164, 2019 PHC 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-11
  double jeopardyquashment of FIRmines accidentconstitutional petitionautre fois acquitcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed before the Peshawar High Court seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 322 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a mine sliding incident that resulted in two deaths and property damage. The core legal question was whether the registration of the FIR under the Pakistan Penal Code, when the incident was also punishable under sections 38 and 40 of the Mines Act, 1923, violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the constitutional guarantee and statutory bar against double jeopardy only apply where there has been a prior trial ending in a conviction or acquittal. Since the case was merely at the investigation stage and no trial or prosecution had yet commenced, the plea of double jeopardy was premature and unfounded.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR during the investigation stage constitute double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What are the essential conditions for the applicability of the rule against double jeopardy and re-trial under Article 13 of the Constitution?
  • Can a person invoke the protection of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 before a trial has commenced or concluded with a conviction or acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghani ur Rehman vs State2019 PHC 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-12
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of the doubteyewitness reliabilitymedical evidence conflictdelayed FIRweapon recoverymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to death. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the reliability of interested and chance eyewitnesses, delayed First Information Report lodging, conflicting medical evidence, unproved motive, and defective weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused due to glaring contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, suspicious delays, and planted recoveries, giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested and chance witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence create a fatal loophole in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect of a delayed reporting of the crime coupled with preliminary police investigation before lodging the FIR?
  • Can a delayed submission of a recovered weapon and matching empty to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery ineffective?
  Read full judgment →
• Fidaullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2019 PLC (C.S.) 58 · Peshawar High Court
  master and servantcontractual employeewrongful terminationconstitutional petitionreinstatementnon-statutory rulesdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a teacher appointed on a contract basis, seeking reinstatement in service following his termination. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee governed by non-statutory service rules could invoke constitutional jurisdiction to challenge their termination and seek reinstatement. The Court held that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was purely one of master and servant, as the applicable service rules were non-statutory. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner could not seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition. The key principle laid down is that where an employer-employee relationship is governed by non-statutory rules, the principle of master and servant applies, precluding the remedy of reinstatement in constitutional jurisdiction. In such instances, the aggrieved party's sole remedy for wrongful termination is to file a suit for damages in a competent court of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, consistent with the precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding contractual employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition when the governing service rules are non-statutory?
  • Is the relationship between an employer and an employee governed by non-statutory rules considered one of master and servant?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a contractual employee who has been wrongfully terminated in the absence of statutory service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal-e-Rabi etc vs Mst. Hajira2020 CLC 813, 2019 PHC 288 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Fazal-e-Haq vs Superintendent Cenetral Prison etc2020 P Cr. L J 1067, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 62, 2019 PHC 364 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21
  default imprisonmentconcurrent sentencessubstantive sentencenarcotics controlconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a convict seeking to reduce the two-year simple imprisonment imposed in default of payment of a fine and to direct that such default imprisonment run concurrently with his substantive sentence. The petitioner, convicted under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, had completed his substantive sentence but remained incarcerated due to the default sentence. The core legal questions were whether the court could reduce the default imprisonment and whether it could order default imprisonment to run concurrently with the substantive sentence. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court had acted within its discretion and in compliance with the law. It established that imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is a distinct, additional punishment, and no court has the power to order it to run concurrently with substantive sentences. Furthermore, Section 65 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sets a maximum limit for default imprisonment, not a minimum, and the trial court’s sentence was within these legal parameters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order imprisonment in default of payment of a fine to run concurrently with a substantive sentence?
  • Does Section 65 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provide a minimum or maximum limit for imprisonment in default of payment of a fine?
  • Does Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a court to order default imprisonment to run concurrently with substantive sentences?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Karim and 4 others vs Hussan Din and 8 others2019 MLD 1082 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Khan vs The State etc2019 PHC 304 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-20
  murderattempted murderbenefit of the doubtjoint identification paradedelayed FIRplanted recoverycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and attempted murder of police officials, alongside a connected revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions revolve around the credibility of delayed ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of joint identification parades without role attribution, and the reliability of planted recoveries. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed supplementary statements, a legally defective joint test identification parade, and fabricated weapon recoveries. The court established that joint identification parades involving multiple suspects without specific role attribution are legally laconic and devoid of evidentiary value, and corroborative recoveries cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable direct evidence. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint identification parade where multiple suspects are mixed together without specific role attribution?
  • Can corroborative evidence such as weapon recoveries sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable direct or eyewitness accounts?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained, inordinate delay in recording a supplementary statement and the statement of a crucial eyewitness?
  • Does a conviction stand when the prosecution evidence is pregnant with confusions and material contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ahmad vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission, through Chairman etc2019 PLC (C.S) 969, 2019 PHC 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-21
  constitutional petitionpublic service commissionwritten testmerit listappointmentexam evaluationhigh court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a candidate for the posts of Subject Specialist and Lecturer advertised by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, after failing to secure the threshold marks required for interviews. He challenged the written test results, alleging that certain multiple-choice questions contained incorrect options, and sought directions for the inclusion of his name in the merit lists, re-evaluation of papers, and participation in the interview process. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, can scrutinize examination papers, interfere with the evaluation process of the Public Service Commission, or award marks for disputed MCQs. The Court held that the High Court cannot assume the role of overseeing examinations conducted by the Public Service Commission, which is the exclusive statutory body mandated for such tasks, and that awarding marks for alleged faulty MCQs would jeopardize the entire selection process. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction can oversee or interfere with the examination process conducted by the Public Service Commission?
  • Can a candidate claim credit for un-attempted or allegedly incorrect multiple-choice questions in a competitive examination?
  • Whether the High Court can substitute its own evaluation for the expert scrutiny of examination papers by the Public Service Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Faridoon through Legal heirs and others vs Government of Khyber2019 MLD 1942 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Faridoon & others vs Govt. of KPK & others2019 PHC 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Farid Khan vs Fazla Qadir and others2020 PLJ Peshawar 8, 2019 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
• Faqir Said vs State2020 YLR 1169, 2019 PHC 260 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-24
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtdying declarationmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness account. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, acquitting the appellant. The court observed that while the eyewitness attributed the firing to two individuals using different weapons, the medical evidence indicated injuries consistent with a single assailant using one weapon. Relying on the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the court emphasized that deliberate falsehood undermines the judicial system and must be rejected. The judgment reiterated that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession, and that procedural lapses in investigation—such as the failure to link recovered weapons to the crime and inconsistencies in the site plan—further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the eyewitness account regarding the number of assailants?
  • Is the benefit of doubt in criminal cases a matter of right or a matter of grace?
  • Can evidence from one criminal case be read into another case?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Khan vs Bakhtawar Jan and 4 others2019 P Cr. L J 1558 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-09
  dishonest issuance of chequeterritorial jurisdictionquashment of FIRjustice of peacecivil and criminal proceedingsconstitutional petitionconsequences of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the quashment of an order passed by the Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the subsequent FIR registered at police station Timergara, District Lower Dir. The core legal question concerned territorial jurisdiction: whether an FIR for dishonouring a cheque can be lodged where the drawee bank is situated, or where the complainant deposited the cheque in their own account, and whether civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously. The court held that while the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is completed where the cheque is dishonoured, the consequences ensue where the cheque is deposited and notice of dishonor is received, attracting Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the complainant has the option to initiate proceedings at either place. The court also reiterated that civil and criminal proceedings may proceed side by side, and disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR for dishonouring a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be lodged at the place where the complainant deposited the cheque in their account?
  • Does the simultaneous pendency of civil litigation bar criminal proceedings for the issuance of a dishonoured cheque?
  • Can disputed questions of fact be resolved within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow criminal proceedings to be initiated at either the place where the cheque was dishonoured or where the consequences ensued?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheemullah vs The State & Jehanzeb Khan2020 PLJ Cr.C (Peshawar) 938, 2019 PHC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ershaad Khan vs Bilal and others2019 PLD Peshawar 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-17
  juvenile justiceage determinationmedical boarddocumentary evidencecriminal revisionjuvenile status
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which dismissed the complainant's application for a medical board examination to determine the accused's age. The accused had claimed juvenile status by producing a Matriculation Detailed Marks Certificate (DMC) before the framing of charges, which the trial court accepted as authentic. The core legal question was whether Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, mandates a medical board examination for age determination in every instance where juvenility is claimed. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the trial court correctly relied on the documentary evidence provided. The court reasoned that a medical board is not mandatory when credible documentary proof of age exists and remains unchallenged. The key principle laid down is that where an accused produces an authentic educational certificate to prove minority, and its validity is not contested as fraudulent or bogus, the trial court is not obligated to resort to a medical board for age determination under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to constitute a medical board for age determination in every case where an accused claims to be a juvenile?
  • Can a trial court rely on a Matriculation Detailed Marks Certificate to determine the age of an accused for the purposes of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the existence of documentary proof of age preclude the necessity of a medical examination under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Enar Khan & 02 others vs Zafar Khan, etc2020 CLC 499, 2019 PHC 318 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Dubai Islamic Bank vs Jalat Khan etc2020 MLD 780, 2019 PHC 404 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1329, 2020 YLR 2503, 2019 PHC 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shamsher Ali Khan and 27 others vs Government of Khyber2019 MLD 87 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25
  constitutional petitionpromissory estoppellegitimate expectationhouse job stipendstate functionariesjudicial reviewfairness in public actions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who are graduates from private medical colleges, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court seeking payment of their discontinued stipends for house jobs performed at Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad, pursuant to an offer letter dated 22.04.2016. The core legal question was whether state functionaries can resile from a clear promise or representation regarding stipends once the other party has acted upon it to their detriment. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that state functionaries cannot act unfairly or arbitrarily, and are bound by their commitments under the equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The court laid down the principle that where a government or state institution makes a clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is acted upon by an individual, creating a legal relationship or causing them to alter their position, the government is bound by such promise, and its withdrawal or refusal to abide by it is subject to judicial review by constitutional courts on grounds of fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether state functionaries can resile from a commitment or promise made to citizens regarding financial benefits after such promise has been acted upon?
  • Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply as a cause of action against the government or its functionaries?
  • Can the actions of a public authority be corrected by a constitutional court on the principles of fairness, legitimate expectation, and promissory estoppel?
  • What are the recognized limitations on invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the government or a government functionary?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Munib vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission2019 PLC (C.S.) 1497, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 1, 2019 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-11
  Public Service Commissionwrit jurisdictionservice recruitmenteducational qualificationsconflict of interestfactual controversyAssistant Professor
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the selection of a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor at Saidu Medical College, Swat, by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. The petitioner alleged that the successful candidate, Respondent No. 6, was ineligible due to a conflict of interest involving an interview panel member, a violation of leave regulations during his M.Phil studies, and a breach of Higher Education Commission policy regarding simultaneous degrees. The Court held that the allegations of bias were unsubstantiated and constituted factual controversies unsuitable for determination under Constitutional jurisdiction. Regarding the statutory objections, the Court clarified that the leave and pay restrictions under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors And Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011, apply specifically to postgraduate medical training like FCPS, not M.Phil programs. Furthermore, the Court found the HEC policy on simultaneous degrees inapplicable due to the specific nature of the degrees and the policy's lack of retrospective effect. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the Public Service Commission lacks the mandate to annul validly obtained degrees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court determine factual controversies requiring elaborate inquiry and evidence in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Do the leave and pay restrictions for postgraduate medical training under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors And Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011 apply to M.Phil programs?
  • Does a Public Service Commission have the legal mandate to annul a degree obtained by a candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mirza Faisal Ahmed Rafiq vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLJ Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Karim Shah vs Chairman, Search and Nomination Council/Health2020 PLC (C.S.) 413, 2019 PHC 328 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-30
  Medical Teaching InstitutionHospital DirectorKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act 2015exigency of servicestatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionappointment legality
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the appointment of a second Hospital Director for the Mufti Mehmood Memorial Teaching Hospital, D.I. Khan, arguing it violates the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015. The core legal question was whether the Medical Teaching Institution (MTI), D.I. Khan, could be bifurcated to allow for the appointment of an additional Hospital Director under the guise of an exigency of service. The Court held that the MTI, as established by the government notification, constitutes a single, indivisible entity comprising Gomal Medical College and its attached hospitals. Consequently, the appointment of a separate Hospital Director for one of the attached hospitals was declared illegal, void ab initio, and without lawful authority. The Court affirmed that Section 10 of the Act mandates a single Hospital Director for the MTI, and the power to appoint on an officiating basis under Section 7(4) cannot be used to circumvent this statutory scheme. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, any deviation from that procedure is legally invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Medical Teaching Institution established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act 2015 be split to appoint separate Hospital Directors for its attached hospitals?
  • Does the power to appoint on an officiating basis under Section 7(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act 2015 authorize the appointment of a second Hospital Director where one is already serving?
  • Is the Mufti Mehmood Memorial Teaching Hospital an independent Medical Teaching Institution or an attached hospital of the Gomal Medical College?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Karim Shah vs Chairman, Search and Nomination Council/Health2019 PHC 328, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 235, 2019 PHC 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-30
  Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Actmaster and servantregular inquiryremoval from servicedelegation of powersdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petitionhospital director
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Hospital Director of Medical Teaching Institution (MTI) D.I.Khan under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, challenged various explanation letters, a show-cause notice, and his eventual removal from service via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the petition under the master-servant principle, the authority of the Chairperson of the Board of Governors (BOG) to independently initiate disciplinary proceedings or delegate powers without statutory backing, and the necessity of a regular inquiry before imposing a major penalty involving allegations of misconduct. The Peshawar High Court held that since the post was created by statute and governed by statutory rules, the master-servant principle did not apply, and the court had writ jurisdiction. The Court further held that the Chairperson alone lacked authority to initiate proceedings or delegate powers, and that a regular inquiry was mandatory before imposing a major penalty like removal for serious misconduct. Consequently, the impugned letters, show-cause notice, and removal order were set aside, with liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employment of a Hospital Director appointed under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015 is governed by the principle of Master and Servant?
  • Does the Chairperson of the Board of Governors have the lawful authority to independently initiate disciplinary proceedings against a statutory officer without the approval of the Board?
  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory prior to the imposition of a major penalty of removal from service when serious allegations of misconduct are leveled?
  • Whether powers conferred upon a statutory authority can be delegated in the absence of an express or implied provision in the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Syed vs The State & others2020 YLR 878, 2019 PHC 426 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-25Read full judgment →
• Dilawar son Baghi Gul vs The State etc2019 PHC 242 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  capital punishmentsolitary eyewitnessmitigating circumstanceunproven motivemurder convictioncriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a solitary eyewitness and the impact of an unproven motive on the quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account of the complainant, a nephew of the deceased, to be natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, including the recovery of the crime weapon. However, regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, suggesting underlying circumstances were concealed. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that the failure to prove a motive acts as a mitigating circumstance in capital cases. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the compensation order and the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle established is that while a solitary witness can sustain a conviction if credible, an unproven motive warrants the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of a solitary eyewitness statement?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Is the testimony of a related witness liable to be discarded solely on the ground of relationship to the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan and 3 others vs Muhammad Zahir Ali and another2019 CLC 79 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Peshawar vs Messrs PakistanPTCL 2019 CL. 697, 2019 PTD 1219 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Peshawar Electricity Supply2020 P C T L R 633, 2019 PTD 2228 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-07-25Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Khan etc vs State through Additional Advocate General and another2019 YLR 2060, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 817 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03
  criminal appealmurderqatl-i-amdtransposed evidenceproclaimed offenderrelated witnessocular accountmedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Dir Lower at Chakdara, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentenced to life imprisonment with compensation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of transposed evidence under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the credibility of related eye-witnesses, and the sufficiency of ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence in establishing guilt despite the non-recovery of the weapon of offense. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the complainant properly transposed from Section 512 proceedings, corroborated by another eye-witness and medical evidence, was trustworthy and sufficient to maintain the conviction, and that mere relationship does not render a witness 'interested' without proof of enmity. The court laid down the principle that the evidence of related witnesses who are confidence-inspiring and unimplicated by deep-rooted enmity requires no corroboration, and that minor discrepancies resulting from lapse of time do not discredit otherwise consistent ocular accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony recorded during proceedings under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be legally transposed and relied upon as evidence in a subsequent trial upon the arrest of a proclaimed offender?
  • Does the mere relationship of an eye-witness with the deceased render them an interested witness whose testimony must be discarded in the absence of corroboration?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence when the alleged weapon of offense is not recovered?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in the testimony of an eye-witness arising from a long lapse of time between the occurrence and the cross-examination are sufficient to discredit the witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Bishop Humprey Sarfaraz Peterz vs Governor of KPK2020 CLC 219, 2019 PHC 264 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-01Read full judgment →
• Bilal vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 401 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-28
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessocular accountabscondencemotivebenefit of doubtjuvenile offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of ocular accounts, chance witnesses, motive, and corroborative evidence like abscondence and weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, making them uncorroborated chance witnesses, and that the motive and weapon matching remained unproven. The court concluded that substantive ocular evidence was unreliable and could not sustain a conviction, setting aside the trial court's judgment. The key principles laid down include the rule that the testimony of chance witnesses requires strong, convincing corroboration, that failure to prove motive damages the prosecution case, and that abscondence alone cannot remedy substantive defects in evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an uncorroborated chance witness can form the basis of a conviction on a capital charge?
  • Can abscondence alone sustain a criminal conviction when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive damage the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an accused's refusal to produce defence witnesses or be examined on oath when threats have been reported?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Mian vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2019 PLJ Peshawar 96, 2019 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-24Read full judgment →
• Bakht Roidar vs Bakht Baidar and others2019 YLR 2679 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
• Bakht Nawas vs The State etc2020 YLR 1685, 2019 PHC 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-19
  criminal appealmurdereyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusinterested witnesschance witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given that the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased, inimical towards the accused, and their testimonies contained significant contradictions and improvements. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt, as the purported eyewitnesses were interested and chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was not corroborated by physical evidence. The Court emphasized that the rule of 'sifting grain from the chaff' has been superseded by the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' as established in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, ruling that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, the benefit of which must be extended to the accused. The key principle laid down is that conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence, and any material falsehood in a witness's testimony renders it unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses be relied upon for conviction in a capital charge without corroboration?
  • Does the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Is the mere abscondence of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the trial court applies the 'sifting grain from the chaff' rule instead of the 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' principle?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhat Roider vs Bakht Baidar2019 PLJ Peshawar 168, 2019 PHC 128 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
• Babar Khan vs Rasheeda Ashraf2019 PHC 254 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-14Read full judgment →
• Azmatullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 874 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-13
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencematerial improvementfree fightappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions between the FIR and the ocular evidence presented at trial, and the potential that the deceased’s fatal injuries resulted from a fall rather than the alleged assault. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with material improvements, unexplained delays in recording witness statements, and a failure to account for the counter-version reported by the accused. Furthermore, the court noted that the medical evidence did not conclusively rule out that the injuries were sustained from a fall. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case suffers from material infirmities and doubts, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material improvement in an eye-witness's statement at trial, which contradicts the FIR, render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused party in a cross-version case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence is consistent with both the prosecution's theory of assault and the possibility of accidental injury from a fall?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine all injured witnesses mentioned in the FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar ALi and another vs SaLeh Muhammad and others2019 CLC 1647, 2019 PHC 92 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan vs Kashif Ali and another2019 YLR 1734 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-14
  criminal appealacquittaldouble presumption of innocencecircumstantial evidencemurderburden of proofreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime. Specifically, there were no eyewitnesses, the alleged motive of illicit relations remained unproven, and the recovery of mobile SIM cards and call detail records failed to conclusively connect the accused to the deceased. The Court emphasized that once an accused is acquitted, they earn a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be disturbed unless the acquittal judgment is shown to be arbitrary or contrary to the evidence. Finding no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, the High Court affirmed the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal judgment grant the accused a double presumption of innocence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the motive remains unproven?
  • Is an appellate court required to interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's appreciation of evidence is not arbitrary or illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan & others vs Near Marble Mining Corporation & others2019 CLC 1424, 2019 PHC 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-14Read full judgment →
• Azad Khan and others vs SMBR and others2019 PLD Peshawar 208, 2019 PHC 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Malik vs Ghulam Sarwar2019 KLR Revenue Cases 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-31Read full judgment →
• Attiq-ur-Rahman vs SHO etc2020 P Cr. L J 1155, 2019 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIRJustice of PeaceCode of Criminal Procedurewrit jurisdictionquashing of inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to set aside an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and to direct the police to register an FIR against the private respondents regarding an alleged abduction attempt and assault arising out of a land dispute. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition and an application under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are warranted when the police have already acted, an inquiry has been conducted, and the allegations are found to be baseless and unproven by CCTV footage and witness statements. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned order of the Justice of Peace was validly passed and that section 22-A proceedings cannot be used as a shortcut to hamper ongoing legal processes when the matter is already being duly inquired into. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not meant to provide a shortcut or interfere with due process where police action has already been initiated and allegations are prima facie baseless.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 be maintained to direct the registration of an FIR when the matter is already under inquiry pursuant to court cognizance?
  • Whether the provisions of section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked as a shortcut when local police have already initiated proceedings in due course of law?
  • Is an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissing a section 22-A application liable to be set aside where CCTV footage and witness statements falsify the petitioner's allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Deshani vs District Police Officer, Haripur and 22019 P Cr. L J 275 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-22
  quashment of FIRcognizance of offencesectarian offencesprior sanctionCode of Criminal Procedurepolice investigationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 153-A, 295-A, and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging sectarian speech. The core legal question was whether the failure to obtain prior government sanction, as required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered the FIR and subsequent proceedings liable to be quashed. The Court held that while the police possess the inherent authority to investigate offences without prior sanction, the trial court is strictly barred from taking cognizance of the specified offences unless a complaint is filed under the authority of the Central or Provincial Government. The Court determined that the submission of a routine challan under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without the requisite government-authorized complaint, was legally defective. Consequently, the proceedings before the trial court were quashed, though the authorities were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in strict compliance with the procedural mandates of Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit the police from investigating offences mentioned therein without prior government sanction?
  • Can a trial court take cognizance of an offence under Section 153-A, 295-A, or 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a routine police challan?
  • What is the legal consequence of submitting a routine challan instead of a government-authorized complaint for offences covered under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Athar Rahim vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2019 PHC 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-14
  constitutional petitionde-novo inquiryservice tribunaljudicial reviewdisciplinary proceedingsrule of lawcivil serviceadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner following his reinstatement by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had reinstated the petitioner and directed the respondents to conduct a de-novo inquiry within 90 days. The core legal question was whether the respondents could initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings after the expiry of the time limit prescribed by the Tribunal. The High Court held that the respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal's order within the stipulated 90-day period, rendering the subsequent initiation of proceedings illegal and void. The Court emphasized that government departments are duty-bound to honor judicial verdicts, and non-compliance undermines the rule of law and the administration of justice. The Court affirmed that it possesses the authority under its constitutional jurisdiction to judicially review executive discretion when such actions violate tribunal orders or impede the administration of justice. Consequently, the departmental proceedings initiated beyond the prescribed period were declared null and void, protecting the petitioner from stale and unauthorized disciplinary action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department initiate disciplinary proceedings after the expiry of the time limit set by a Service Tribunal for a de-novo inquiry?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to judicially review executive discretion in disciplinary matters when such actions violate a Service Tribunal's order?
  • What is the legal effect of a department's failure to comply with a Service Tribunal's directive to complete an inquiry within a specified period?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs Federation of Pakistan etc2019 YLR 1983, 2019 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs The State etc2019 P Cr. L J 1073, 2019 PHC 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-22
  criminal appealacquittalcircumstantial evidenceconfession to policeelectronic evidencecall data recordmurderQanoon-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including alleged call data records, a USB containing a purported confession, and the recovery of the deceased's motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to connect the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of eyewitnesses. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the Court ruled that electronic evidence, such as call data records and USB recordings, must be strictly proved through authorized experts as per Articles 46-A and 78-A of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The principle laid down is that in unseen occurrences, circumstantial evidence requires strong, independent corroboration, and medical evidence alone cannot establish the identity of the accused or connect them to the commission of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made to a police officer admissible as evidence against an accused?
  • Can electronic evidence, such as call data records or USB recordings, be admitted without proof from a legally authorized expert?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to establish the identity of an accused in an unseen murder occurrence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence in the absence of eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Jan vs M/s National Bank of Pakistan etc2020 PLC (C.S.) 217, 2019 PHC 204 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-05
  writ jurisdictioncontractual employmentretainershipvested rightcontract renewalservice arrearsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the renewal of his retainership contract with the respondent bank and the payment of alleged arrears for services rendered after the contract's expiry. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could compel a statutory body to renew a contract that had expired by its own terms and whether it could adjudicate claims for arrears arising from a disputed period of service. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing it on the grounds that the petitioner, as a contract employee, had no vested right to the renewal of his engagement, which was at the sole discretion of the bank. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual disputes, including claims for arrears, must be resolved by courts of ordinary jurisdiction rather than through writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere in purely contractual obligations or compel the extension of a contract where no fundamental right is violated.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to compel a statutory body to renew an expired contract?
  • Does an employee engaged on a contract or retainership basis possess a vested right to claim renewal or regularization?
  • Can claims for arrears arising from alleged contractual obligations be adjudicated by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah vs Chief Secretary etc2020 PLD Peshawar 35, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 93, 2019 PHC 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah Jan vs M/s. National Bank of Pakistan through President2019 PLJ Peshawar 187 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aslam Khan vs Fawad Akhtar2019 PHC 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Arshad and 03 others vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Environment and Wildlife, Peshawar and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 356, 2019 PHC 232 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-24
  contractual employmentregularization of servicesvested rightproject employeeswrit of mandamustermination of servicecivil servant status
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by petitioners seeking the withdrawal of a termination order and their regularization against permanent posts following the closure of a project titled 'Strengthening and Development of Wildlife Resources in Chitral, Dir and Swat Wildlife Division'. The core legal question was whether contractual employees appointed on a fixed-pay project basis possess a vested right to regularization upon the project's termination, particularly when their appointment terms explicitly excluded such rights. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners, as contractual employees, had no vested right to regularization. The Court emphasized that their appointment terms expressly stipulated that their service would not confer rights to regular absorption or civil servant status. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established legal principle that contractual appointments terminate upon the expiry of the contract period or the project's life. Consequently, the Court ruled that it could not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the government to regularize the petitioners in the absence of a statutory or legal obligation to do so.

  Questions settled

  • Do contractual employees appointed on a fixed-pay project basis possess an inalienable right to regularization upon the project's closure?
  • Can a Constitutional Court issue a direction to a statutory functionary to regularize employees in the absence of a legal or statutory obligation?
  • Does a contractual appointment create a vested right for regular appointment upon the expiry of the contract period?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqalmand vs Mst. Salika and others2019 CLC 2067 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan etc vs Raza Khan etc2020 CLC 1015, 2019 PHC 312 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-04Read full judgment →
• Anwar Kamal vs The State etc2019 PHC 340 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
• Aman-Ul-Haq vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1351 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-18
  narcotics controlcriminal appealbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportevidentiary discrepancyacquittalremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of alleged narcotics from a vehicle. The case involved a prior remand order directing the trial court to obtain fresh samples for chemical analysis due to evidentiary concerns. Upon remand, the fresh laboratory report revealed significant discrepancies, indicating that the recovered substance was not 15 kilograms of heroin as initially alleged, but a substantially smaller quantity. The Court held that these glaring contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, coupled with unexplained delays in sending samples to the laboratory and conflicting chemical reports, created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused rather than a concession, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant discrepancy between the alleged quantity of narcotics and the chemical examiner's report entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right of the accused?
  • What is the effect of unexplained delays in dispatching samples to a forensic laboratory on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Haider Shah and 2 others vs Ayaat Shah2019 CLC 1795 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-14Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Saleem and another vs The State and another2019 MLD 1107 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-28
  ocular accountreasonable doubtmedical evidencecapital chargecriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the ocular account and the corroborating evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt. The court observed that the ocular account was riddled with material contradictions, including discrepancies between witness statements and the site plan, and a direct conflict with medical evidence regarding the time of food digestion in the deceased. Furthermore, the court found the recovery evidence unreliable due to the lack of independent witnesses and forensic mismatches. Emphasizing that once an ocular account is disbelieved, other evidence is insufficient for a capital conviction, the court ruled that these infirmities created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, while the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the time of death render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained if the ocular account is disbelieved, regardless of the strength of other evidence?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses to recovery proceedings weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused person to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhber Khan vs Nazar Gul2020 P Cr. L J 68, 2019 PHC 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-25
  acquittal appealocular evidencereasonable doubtsite plan contradictionscorroborative evidenceabscondencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a murder and attempted murder case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the provided ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding that the prosecution's case suffered from significant infirmities. Specifically, the court noted material contradictions between the eyewitness testimonies and the site plan, particularly regarding the location of the occurrence and the presence of witnesses. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries was inconsistent with firearm usage, and the recovery of empty casings was not properly linked to the accused. The court reiterated the principle that conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence. It held that where direct evidence is unreliable, corroborative evidence like abscondence cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court affirmed that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, maintaining the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondence of an accused be used as a substantive piece of evidence to sustain a conviction?
  • Does a material contradiction between eyewitness testimony and the site plan warrant the rejection of ocular evidence?
  • Is recovery of crime empties without forensic analysis sufficient to support a conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of a single credible infirmity in the testimony of a witness on the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Rashid and 03 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLC (C.S.) 1326, 2019 PHC 354 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-27
  writ jurisdictionpublic appointmentselection committeetyping speed testjudicial reviewmerit listconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ to direct the respondents to appoint them as Junior Clerks (BPS-11), alleging they were meritorious candidates who were unfairly excluded despite qualifying the written test. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with the selection process and substitute its opinion for that of the selection committee regarding the candidates' performance in the mandatory typing speed test. The Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The ratio decidendi established that a typing speed test, when explicitly prescribed as a pre-condition in an advertisement, is a mandatory requirement for the post of Junior Clerk. The Court affirmed that it cannot substitute its own opinion for that of an interview board or selection committee, nor can it interfere with the domain of interviewing authorities unless clear malice is established. Since the petitioners failed the mandatory typing speed test, they were ineligible for appointment, and the respondents acted lawfully in following the selection committee's recommendations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court substitute its own opinion for that of an interview board or selection committee in public appointments?
  • Does a failure to meet a mandatory typing speed test prescribed in an advertisement disqualify a candidate for the post of Junior Clerk?
  • Is a candidate who passes a written test but fails a mandatory skill test entitled to appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs Tehsil Nazim, Tehsil Municipal Administration, Tehsil Ghazi, District, Haripur and 7 others2019 PCTLR 1124, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 13, 2019 PTD 509, 2019 CLC 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs Jahangir Khan and others2019 YLR 1287 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-28Read full judgment →
• Adil Khan vs Chinar Gul2020 P Cr. L J 729, 2019 PHC 392 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  retracted confessionjudicial confessioncriminal appealcorroborative evidenceprocedural irregularitymurder trialacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court for murder under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether such a confession, absent independent corroboration, could sustain a conviction in an unseen occurrence case. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court found that the confession was procedurally flawed, having been recorded after an unexplained delay, without proper verification of the accused's identity, and without ensuring the exclusion of police influence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the retracted confession lacked independent corroboration, as the prosecution failed to examine the witness from whom the deceased's mobile phone was recovered. Consequently, the Court established that a retracted judicial confession cannot form the sole basis for a capital conviction without strong, independent corroborative evidence, and procedural irregularities in recording confessions render them unreliable. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a conviction in a capital case without independent corroboration?
  • What are the procedural requirements for a Magistrate to record a valid judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to produce a material witness during trial warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there is an unexplained delay in recording a confession and a lack of arrest documentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Gul Tiaz Khan ASI, P.S Jani Khel and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1385 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-26
  quashment petitionalteration of chargehurtitlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udwcriminal proceduretrial court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a quashment petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to set aside orders of the Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge, Bannu, which had dismissed his application for alteration of the criminal charge against the respondent from Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in failing to alter the charge based on the medical evidence and available record. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court failed to evaluate the medical record, which prima facie attracted Section 336 PPC, and that a court is empowered under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment. The petition was accepted, the impugned orders were set aside, the charge was altered to Section 336 PPC, and the matter was directed to be sent to the Court of Session.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court alter or add to any charge before the pronouncement of judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the trial court is bound to consider the medical record and form its own opinion independently of the police report while framing a charge?
  • Is a court empowered to alter a charge to a more serious offence when the available record and medical evidence disclose the same?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Gul Tiaz Khan and another2019 MLD 1686 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-26
  quashment of proceedingsalteration of chargeitlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udwcriminal revisionmedical evidencetrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, which refused to alter the charge against the respondent from Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner alleged that the respondent caused injuries resulting in the loss of sight in his left eye, which warranted the more serious charge of itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw. The Court held that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence, specifically the doctor's testimony regarding the traumatic injury, which clearly supported the application of Section 336. The Court emphasized that under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a court has the authority to alter or add to any charge at any time before the pronouncement of judgment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, directed the alteration of the charge, and ordered the case to be transferred to the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court alter or add to a charge at any time before the pronouncement of judgment?
  • Is a trial court bound by the opinion of the local police when framing a charge, or must it form its own opinion based on the record?
  • What procedure must a court follow under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a charge is altered after the commencement of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Iterior and 6 others2019 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid through his legal heirs vs Syed Fida-ur-Rahman Shah2019 PHC 262 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLD Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs State2020 P Cr. L J 158, 2019 PHC 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-07-19
  attempt to rapeoutraging modestyquantum of sentencemitigating circumstancesminor inconsistenciesdelay in FIRenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/IZQ Dir (Upper) at Wari, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 354 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting to rape his real daughter and outraging her modesty, and sentenced to ten years and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence regarding an attempt to commit rape by a father upon his daughter, the interpretation of section 511 PPC concerning sentencing limits for attempts, and whether minor inconsistencies in evidence and existing family litigation constitute mitigating circumstances. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent and credible testimony of the victim and eyewitnesses, and that delay in reporting is inconsequential in offences of this nature between a daughter and her father. However, the Court held that minor inconsistencies in evidence and pending family litigation serve as mitigating circumstances regarding the quantum of sentence. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the conviction under section 354 PPC, reducing the sentence under section 511 PPC from ten years to five years with a reduced fine, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in reporting an offence of attempt to rape by a daughter against her real father is sufficient to discard the prosecution case?
  • Does section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prescribe a mandatory minimum sentence or leave the lower threshold to the discretion of the court?
  • Can minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and pending family litigation be considered as mitigating circumstances to reduce the quantum of sentence?
  • What constitutes a criminal attempt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of a statutory definition?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State and another2019 PHC 408, 2020 YLR 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Ilyas etc2020 YLR 58, 2019 PHC 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq & another vs The State2019 PHC 338 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hassan vs The State and 6 others2019 P Cr. L J 777 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-29
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdouble innocenceappreciation of evidencecriminal trialfirearm injurieseye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of evidence or if it ignored material facts. The High Court, upon reviewing the record, found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of independent witnesses on a busy road, and a lack of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime. Crucially, medical evidence contradicted the claim that the complainant and witnesses sustained firearm injuries, rendering their presence at the scene doubtful. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Emphasizing the principle of "double innocence" that arises after an acquittal, the Court affirmed that the trial court correctly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine, as the prosecution failed to provide cogent reasons to dislodge the presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of 'double innocence' apply to an accused person who has been acquitted by a trial court?
  • Can an acquittal be maintained when medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's claim regarding the nature of injuries sustained by witnesses?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR a factor that can cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a public place during an alleged occurrence undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →