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. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Punjab Small Industries Corporation Versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1988 SCMR 1725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06
  industrial employmentstanding ordersabolition of poststermination of servicestatutory corporationvalidation ordinancelabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the termination of services of employees of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation due to the abolition of posts following the closure of the Shoe Section. The core legal question was whether the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applied to the Corporation’s employees and whether the termination orders were lawful. The Supreme Court held that the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is applicable to the Corporation, as it is a statutory body and not a government department excluded by the proviso. However, the Court found that the termination of services was valid because the posts were genuinely abolished, and the employer is not obligated to retain employees when the underlying posts no longer exist. The Court further held that the Appellate Tribunal’s finding that the section was not closed was based on a misreading of evidence. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the West Pakistan Small Industries Corporation (Dissolution) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 validated the Corporation's actions regarding transferred employees. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Appellate Tribunal, and restored the Labour Court’s decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees of a statutory corporation?
  • Can an employer terminate the services of a workman upon the genuine abolition of their post?
  • Does the validation of actions by the West Pakistan Small Industries Corporation (Dissolution) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 cover the termination of transferred employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Mayat Versus Wealth Tax Officer1988 SCMR 1722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
• Saleem-Ud-Din Versus Jameel Akhtar Pervaiz1988 SCMR 1717 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14
  winding upofficial liquidatorauction salebreach of contractcondonation of breachcompany judgediscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arose from a winding-up order passed under the Companies Act 1913 against Pak-Wheat Products Ltd., where the auction-purchaser of the company's flour mill allegedly committed flagrant breaches of the auction terms, including failing to furnish a bank guarantee and delaying installment payments. The appellants contended that the Company Judge erred in condoning these breaches and allowing the contract to subsist instead of rescinding it. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the High Court possessed the authority to condone such breaches and complete the sale. The Court held that under Sections 178 and 179 of the Companies Act 1913, the Company Judge is empowered to act in the best interests of all creditors and contributories. If the Court determines that maintaining the sale serves the parties' interests best, it may condone breaches of auction terms. Finding that the bulk of the consideration had been paid without timely objection from the appellants, the Court affirmed that the discretionary power was exercised properly and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Company Judge conducting winding-up proceedings have the power to condone breaches of auction terms by a purchaser if it serves the best interests of the creditors and contributories?
  • Can a contract for the sale of a company's assets under liquidation be rescinded after the bulk of the consideration has been accepted without timely objection from the stakeholders?
  • What statutory provisions govern the duty of the Court to act in the best interests of interested parties during the disposal of assets of a company under liquidation?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha Versus Abdur Rehman1988 SCMR 1711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-26
  statutory employmentmaster and servant doctrinetermination of servicereasonable opportunity to defendprobationercivil court jurisdictionshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the termination of a temporary employee of a statutory body, the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the respondent, a probationer, was afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against termination, and whether the relationship between the Board and its employees is governed by statutory rules rather than the common law doctrine of master and servant. The Supreme Court held that the relationship is statutory, as the Board's regulations incorporate protections similar to those of Government servants. Consequently, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging such termination if statutory procedures are violated. However, on the facts, the Court found that the respondent was provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself through a preliminary inquiry and a show-cause notice process. The termination order, being a simple termination for unsatisfactory work and conduct rather than a dismissal for misconduct, complied with the applicable regulations. The Court established that while statutory employees are entitled to procedural fairness under their governing regulations, the specific requirements depend on the nature of the action taken.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between a statutory board and its employees fall under the doctrine of master and servant or is it governed by statutory rules?
  • Can a civil court exercise jurisdiction over a suit challenging the termination of a statutory body's employee?
  • Does the termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory work require the same formal inquiry as a dismissal for misconduct?
  • When does the ouster of jurisdiction clause in a statute apply to actions taken by a statutory board?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Noor Versus Ahmad1988 SCMR 1703 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05
  specific reliefcancellation of deedfraudulent transferpleading particularsvoidable instrumentdowerinheritance claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a civil suit where the respondent, claiming a share in his deceased brother's estate, challenged a registered deed transferring land to the appellant (the deceased's widow) as dower. The respondent alleged the deed was fictitious but failed to provide specific particulars of fraud in his pleadings or seek formal cancellation of the registered instrument. The trial and appellate courts decreed the suit in the respondent's favor, ignoring the appellant's objections regarding the form of the suit and the lack of specific fraud allegations. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the respondent was required to seek cancellation of the registered deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and whether the failure to plead particulars of fraud under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was fatal to the suit. The Court held that because the deed was voidable rather than void ab initio, the respondent was required to seek its cancellation. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that general allegations of fraud are insufficient; specific particulars must be pleaded. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a plaintiff required to seek cancellation of a registered deed if the instrument is voidable rather than void ab initio?
  • Does a general allegation of fraud in a pleading satisfy the requirements of Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Must a successor-in-interest seek the avoidance of an instrument that constitutes an impediment to their claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Versus Sardar Muhammad1988 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10
  murdersentence reductiondeath penaltysudden fightleave to appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the murder conviction of the respondent Sardar Muhammad under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered his sentence from death to imprisonment for life, while acquitting a co-accused of the murder charge. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life based on extenuating circumstances arising from a sudden fight, where the deceased was allegedly attacking an elderly family member. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the propriety of the sentence reduction and the appreciation of evidence by the High Court. The holding of the Court is to grant leave to examine whether the discretion in withholding the normal penalty of death was correctly exercised under the circumstances of a sudden occurrence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life in a case of a sudden fight?
  • Can a court rely upon the statement of an acquitted co-accused to determine the immediate cause of an occurrence?
  • Whether the application of common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is warranted when an accused acts independently during a sudden quarrel?
  Read full judgment →
• Jannat Bibi Versus Sher Muhammad1988 SCMR 1696 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-25
  limited estatecustomary lawadverse possessionlimitationfamily settlementpardahnashin womanshariat application
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit filed by a widow seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of her 1/4th share in her deceased husband's estate under Muslim Personal Law. The husband died in 1944, and the parties had entered into a family arrangement where the widow held land in one village while the respondents held land in three other villages. Following the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, which terminated limited estates held by Muslim females under custom, the widow claimed her statutory 1/4th share as a Muslim law heir. The respondents argued the suit was time-barred due to their adverse possession over the three villages for more than 12 years. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that any adverse possession prior to 1962 could only prescribe against the widow's limited life estate, not against her full ownership rights which only accrued in 1962 by operation of law. Consequently, the suit filed in 1966 was well within the limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • What is the effect of adverse possession against a female limited owner holding a life estate under customary law once that limited estate is terminated by the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
  • Does the limitation period for a Muslim female heir to claim her statutory share under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 run from the date of the last owner's actual death or from the enforcement of the Act?
  • What is the burden of proof required to establish the relinquishment of immovable property rights by a pardahnashin woman?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jee Versus Muhammad Ibrahim Shauq '1988 SCMR 1691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21
  criminal appealacquittalretrialappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtinterested witnessesdiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from an order of the High Court setting aside an acquittal and remanding a case for retrial. The appellants were originally charged with offences under sections 342 and 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged forcible occupation of a 'Baithak' and illegal confinement. The trial court acquitted the appellants, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable, contradictory, and based on interested witnesses, while noting the absence of independent corroboration. The High Court reversed this, citing improper appreciation of evidence and failure to consider certain documents. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court exercised its discretion correctly in ordering a retrial. The Court held that the High Court's order was unjustified, as the trial court had fairly appraised the evidence and provided cogent reasons for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that retrials should not be ordered merely to allow a different judicial opinion on evidence already properly assessed. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing that a retrial in such circumstances would cause injustice and undermine the benefit of the doubt already extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances is it appropriate for an appellate court to order a retrial in a criminal case?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to consider specific documents in its appreciation of evidence automatically justify an order for retrial?
  • Should a retrial be ordered when the prosecution's case rests on the testimony of interested witnesses whose evidence has already been found unreliable by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1988 SCMR 1690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03
  land allotmentsettlement of claimsforgeryJammu and Kashmir refugeerevision petitionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that upheld a decision by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the allotment of 64 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land. The land was originally allotted to a Jammu and Kashmir refugee in 1963 and confirmed in 1966. The petitioners claimed the land based on an alleged earlier allotment in 1966, which they sought to enforce by having the respondent's transfer cancelled. The Settlement Commissioner, however, found that the petitioners' claim was based on tampered records and forged signatures from revenue officials, and that the land had already been validly confirmed to the respondent. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging this finding. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' claim was invalid due to the prior allotment to the refugee and the established finding that the petitioners' own allotment documents were tainted by forgery. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that an allotment based on forged documents cannot be sustained against a valid prior claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allotment of land be sustained when it is based on forged documents and tampered records?
  • Does a prior valid allotment of land to a refugee preclude a subsequent claim by another party?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding forgery by a Settlement Commissioner binding in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan1988 SCMR 1689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
• Alauddin Versus Abdul Raheem1988 SCMR 1688 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Ali Versus Member, Board of Revenue1988 SCMR 1687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Haider Versus Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1988 SCMR 1685 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ara Versus Abdul Qadir1988 SCMR 1684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Versus Water and Power Development Authority1988 SCMR 1683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Muhammad Azam Khan1988 SCMR 1682 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus M. Khadim Hussain Khalid1988 SCMR 1681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Javed Bokhari Versus Deputy Settlement Commissioner Sialkot.1988 SCMR 1680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Nanki Versus Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1988 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• Alamdar Hussain Versus I.-G. Police1988 SCMR 1679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Muhammad Versus Commissioner, Lahore Division1988 SCMR 1678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad Versus Government of the Punjab1988 SCMR 1677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khokhar Versus Administrative Officer, General Hospital, Lahore1988 SCMR 1676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Shah Versus Sardaran Bibi1988 SCMR 1675 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Chiragh Din Versus Pakistana1988 SCMR 1674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Ahmad Versus Water and Power Development, Authority1988 SCMR 1673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab Versus Masud Akhtar1988 SCMR 1672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Qureshi Versus Muhammad Siddique1988 SCMR 1668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06
  evacuee propertyresumption orderpermanent transfer deedcompensation poolsettlement schemetime-barred revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning an evacuee property in Lahore, originally allotted to the appellant in 1962. The property was subsequently resumed in 1971 due to alleged non-payment of the transfer price, and thereafter transferred to the respondent, who obtained a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The appellant challenged the resumption and transfer through a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, which was accepted. However, the Lahore High Court set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order via a writ petition, holding that the revision was time-barred under section 5 of the Limitation Act without an application for condonation of delay, and that the property had validly passed out of the compensation pool upon the issuance of the P.T.D. The Supreme Court considered the rival claims and the conduct of the parties, noting that the appellant failed to clear the transfer price despite encashing his compensation book. Ultimately, based on a concession made by the respondent, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by dividing the property according to the respective portions in physical possession of each party.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revision petition filed against a property resumption order without an accompanying application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is maintainable?
  • Does a property cease to be part of the compensation pool after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Can a settlement commissioner interfere with the transfer of evacuee property in favor of a third party who has obtained a P.T.D. without alleging fraud or misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Versus Muhammad Humayun Khan1988 SCMR 1664 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-12
  workman statusbranch managerindustrial relationsgrievance applicationconcurrent findings of factlabour lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional Petition filed by Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. The Bank sought to set aside orders from the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had declared the respondent, a former Branch Manager, to be a 'workman' entitled to seek relief under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether a Branch Manager, given his supervisory duties and power of attorney, qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labour laws. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower forums, noting that the determination of whether an employee is a 'workman' is primarily a question of fact based on the nature of duties performed. The Court observed that the appellant failed to produce evidence regarding the respondent's specific duties to substantiate the claim that he was an employer rather than a workman. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent was entitled to invoke the grievance procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of whether an employee is a 'workman' a question of fact or law?
  • Can a Branch Manager of a bank be considered a 'workman' for the purposes of filing a grievance application under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding an employee's status in a constitutional appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Akram Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 1660 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04
  process feedismissal of suitdefault in evidencecourt fee exemptioncivil revisionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court examines whether the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failure to deposit process fees, and whether the appellate and revisional courts erred in ignoring the binding precedent of the Peshawar High Court in Shahzullah v. Shahabuddin. The core legal question concerned the legality of penalizing a party for non-payment of process fees in light of the North-West Frontier Province Ordinance No.XIV of 1978 and rules regarding process fees. The Supreme Court held that the law laid down in Shahzullah's case was correct, meaning the plaintiff was not required to furnish process fees and could not be penalized under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that process fee rules must be interpreted consistently with statutory exemptions, and a court cannot dismiss a suit under Order XVII Rule 3 for non-compliance with an illegal or unwarranted order to deposit process fees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can be penalized under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to deposit process fees when such fees are not legally chargeable?
  • Does the North-West Frontier Province Ordinance No.XIV of 1978 exempt litigants from paying process fees in civil cases?
  • Whether an appellate or revisional court is bound to consider a cited High Court precedent raised in the grounds of challenge?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan Versus Noor Muhammad1988 SCMR 1659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi Versus Muhammad Malik1988 SCMR 1657 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-22
  land allotmentrefugee settlementMukhbari applicationdouble allotmentJammu and Kashmir refugeeswrit jurisdictionsettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of land to refugees from Jammu and Kashmir settled in Sialkot District. The appellants filed a Mukhbari application alleging that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, Chiragh Din, had obtained double allotments in two different villages. While the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment in one village based on this allegation, the Settlement Commissioner later found as a matter of fact that there were two distinct individuals named Chiragh Din, thereby negating the double allotment claim. Despite this finding, the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on technical grounds regarding a cancelled Ration Card. The Lahore High Court subsequently set aside these orders, ruling that the allotment fell under the specific category of the Scheme for allotment of land to refugees from Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's decision was correct and that the legal precedent cited by the appellants regarding the cancellation of allotments on Mukhbari applications was factually inapplicable to the present case, as no double allotment existed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allotment of land to a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir be cancelled on the basis of a Mukhbari application if the allegation of double allotment is factually disproven?
  • Does the existence of two different individuals with the same name and parentage preclude a finding of double allotment by settlement authorities?
  • Is a High Court justified in restoring an allotment if the settlement authorities' cancellation order was based on a flawed factual premise regarding the identity of the allottee?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad Versus Muhammad Ashraf, Civil Judge1988 SCMR 1656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib Versus Ikramul Haq1988 SCMR 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07
  pre-emptionnature of transactiongift vs salerevisional jurisdictionquestion of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three petitions for special leave to appeal arising from pre-emption suits. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the transaction through which the vendees acquired ownership of the estate constituted a gift, as claimed by the respondents, or a sale, as asserted by the petitioners, and whether the lower appellate court erred in its determination of this nature. The trial court had initially found the transaction to be a sale; however, the Additional District Judge reversed this finding, concluding it was a gift. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, refused to interfere with this factual determination. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Additional District Judge had properly examined the evidence and surrounding circumstances. The Court affirmed that the nature of the transaction was a pure question of fact, and since the lower appellate court's finding did not suffer from any legal infirmity, the High Court was correct in declining to interfere with that finding in revision. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of whether a transaction constitutes a gift or a sale considered a question of fact?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by an appellate court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does a finding of fact by an appellate court that is based on an examination of evidence and circumstances warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Versus Mushtaq Ahmad1988 SCMR 1653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Versus Niaz Ali1988 SCMR 1652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din Versus Ghulam Fatima1988 SCMR 1651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-07
  murderculpable homicideright of self-defencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentenceappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the State's appeal, setting aside the trial court's conviction under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. and convicting the appellant Zahoor Ahmad under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, sentencing him to death. The core legal question involved whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused of murder and convicting them of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and whether mitigating circumstances existed for the award of a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly altered the conviction to murder under section 302/34, as the attack was premeditated, without sudden provocation, and the right of self-defence was not available. The court laid down the principle that where an accused persists in unlawful advances, attacks a parent who reproaches such conduct, and causes fatal injuries with a lethal weapon to a vital artery, no leniency or mitigating circumstance exists to warrant a lesser penalty than death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code to section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does an accused who inflicts fatal injuries with a sharp-edged weapon after being reproached for misconduct qualify for the right of private defence?
  • Whether the passage of a long period of time since the commission of the offence constitutes a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Muhammad Asghar1988 SCMR 1648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09
  sodomyculpable homicideenhancement of sentenceconcurrent sentencescriminal appealjuvenile offender
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a direct appeal seeking the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent, a minor aged about sixteen years, who was convicted under section 377 and section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident of sodomy that resulted in the death of an eight-year-old victim. The core legal question was whether the sentence awarded for sodomy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder should be enhanced or made consecutive rather than concurrent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no legal error was committed by the trial court in sentencing the respondent to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for both offenses, and declined to interfere with the concurrent running of the sentences given that the death was an unintended consequence of the primary act of sodomy. The key principle laid down is that where death results as an unintended consequence of sodomy, the offense properly falls under section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and appellate interference with concurrent sentences is unwarranted if the trial court exercised its discretion soundly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence awarded under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrants enhancement to the maximum term when the act results in the death of the victim?
  • Should sentences for sodomy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder run consecutively or concurrently?
  • Whether an unintended death resulting from an act of sodomy constitutes an offense under section 302 or section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Nur Riahi Gardezi Versus Mian Nasim Muslim1988 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-28Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad Versus Mumtaz Jehan1988 SCMR 1646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
• Sughran Bibi Versus Taja1988 SCMR 1645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
• Rahm Din Versus State1988 SCMR 1643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus State1988 SCMR 1640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Versus Fateh Begum1988 SCMR 1639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain Shah Alias Gullu Versus State1988 SCMR 1638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09
  speedy trialsodomysexual assaultminor victimcriminal appealmedical evidenceappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987 directed against the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the charges of sodomy and sexual assault on a minor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the medical and ocular evidence clearly proved the commission of the offense, and even suggested that a charge of rape was made out on the record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on sound medical and ocular evidence in heinous offenses against minors warrant no interference by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal lies under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance 1987 against a conviction passed by a Special Court?
  • Does the presence of tear marks, congestion, and tenderness of the anus sufficiently establish an offense under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with well-considered findings of fact by a trial court supported by reliable medical and ocular evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din Versus Nazir Ahmad1988 SCMR 1637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
• Jafar Hussain Versus Said Ahmad1988 SCMR 1636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ghuiam Sabir Versus Ghulam Nabi1988 SCMR 1635 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Allah Bakhsh1988 SCMR 1633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Versus Sughra Bibi1988 SCMR 1632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulaiman Versus Assistant Commissioner Additional Settlement Commissioner (L), Vehari1988 SCMR 1631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-07
  evacuee propertyallotment disputesuperior entitlementsettlement commissionerconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition concerning the allotment of evacuee property. The core dispute involved competing claims over two fields in Tehsil Vehari, which were originally allotted to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in 1951, but subsequently confirmed in favor of a third party, Wali Muhammad, whose interest was later acquired by the petitioner's father. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, acting as a notified officer, set aside the allotment to Wali Muhammad and restored the original allotment to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's refusal to interfere with this administrative decision was justified. The Court held that since respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were the original allottees and their claims were verified prior to the allotment to Wali Muhammad, they held a superior entitlement to the land. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the administrative order, ruling that the respondents were better entitled to the disputed fields, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Are original allottees with verified claims entitled to preference over subsequent allottees of evacuee property?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an administrative order regarding land allotment where the original allottees have a superior claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan Versus State1988 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din Versus Ghulam Haider1988 SCMR 1623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-16
  arbitration awardnon-participation of arbitratorjoint deliberationregistration of awardarbitration agreementmisconduct of arbitratorsrule of the court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by right arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had reversed the trial court's decision and made an arbitration award the rule of the court. The core legal questions involved whether an arbitration agreement was void for vagueness, whether the non-registration of an award rendered it inadmissible, and whether the absence and non-participation of one of the appointed arbitrators at the finalization of the award vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the arbitration agreement was sufficiently certain and the lack of registration did not render the award entirely inadmissible under the amended Registration Act, the complete absence and non-participation of one of the arbitrators at the final deliberations and finalization of the award amounted to a fatal defect and misconduct that vitiated the award. The Court laid down the principle that all joint arbitrators must act together and participate in every stage and final deliberation, as parties are entitled to the judgment and experience of each arbitrator, and an award made without such joint deliberation by all arbitrators is ultra vires and void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence and non-participation of one of the joint arbitrators at the finalization stage vitiate an arbitration award?
  • Whether an arbitration agreement is void for vagueness when the property and disputes are stated in general terms?
  • What is the effect of non-registration of an arbitration award under the amended Registration Act in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nakki Versus State1988 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
• Nasim Ahmad Khan Versus Niaz Akhtar1988 SCMR 1619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
• Zohar Khan Versus Amir Abullah Khan1988 SCMR 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16
  leave to appealacquittalcriminal revisionconcurrent findingsbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed his revision petition directed against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent of charges under section 324/34, Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court had initially convicted the respondent, but the Sessions Judge accepted the respondent's appeal and acquitted him while dismissing the petitioner's revision for enhancement of sentence and retrial. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether interference was warranted against concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the acquittal, founded on the proper appreciation of evidence, raised no question of law justifying interference. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on evidence where no substantial question of law arises, and accordingly dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal based on appreciation of evidence?
  • Can a revision petition against an acquittal be entertained when no question of law arises?
  • Is the benefit of doubt properly extended when the first appellate court identifies material infirmities in the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus Rab Nawaz Alias Security1988 SCMR 1602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17
  murderacquittalocular evidencemedical evidencecorroborationcriminal appealreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment rendered by the High Court, which had overturned the trial court's conviction of the respondent for the murder of Khurshid Alam. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the medical evidence's failure to corroborate the ocular testimony. The petitioner argued that the High Court incorrectly assessed the medical findings concerning the distance from which the fatal shot was fired. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning sound, noting that the medical evidence regarding burning and blackening on the wound was inconsistent with the distances alleged by the prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the High Court's findings on the evidentiary discrepancies were unassailable and that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal, establishing that where medical evidence contradicts the ocular account regarding the distance of firing, it undermines the credibility of the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Can medical evidence regarding the distance of a gunshot wound be used to discredit ocular testimony?
  • Does the presence of burning and blackening on a gunshot wound contradict a claim that the shot was fired from a significant distance?
  • Is an appellate court's finding on the appreciation of evidence immune from interference if it is based on sound legal principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi & Co. Versus Abdul Haleem Khan1988 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  Settlement Scheme No. VIex parte orderleave to appealnatural justiceproperty transferfinality of ordersremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order of the Notified Authority regarding the transfer of a property site under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The core legal question is whether an uncommunicated and ex parte order, allegedly rejecting an application under the scheme, can be treated as final and binding to foreclose the rights of a party, even if that order was never challenged or brought to the attention of the adjudicating authority. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the High Court's reliance on an order recorded in the secrecy of an office without hearing the parties requires deeper examination. The Court observed that an order passed without notice or communication to the affected parties raises significant questions regarding its validity and binding effect. Furthermore, the Court questioned the propriety of the High Court conducting a summary adjudication on a disputed question of fact rather than remanding the matter for proper consideration by the Notified Authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex parte order passed without notice or communication to the affected parties be treated as a final and binding order?
  • Is it appropriate for a High Court to conduct a summary adjudication on a disputed question of fact instead of remanding the matter to the competent authority?
  • Does the failure to challenge an uncommunicated administrative order render it final and conclusive against a party's entitlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad Versus State1988 SCMR 1598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-08
  ocular testimonyforensic corroborationmitigation of sentencedeath penaltycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Iftikhar Ahmad, for murder. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, which had been partially discredited regarding acquitted co-accused, remained sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction, and whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the circumstances of the incident. The Supreme Court held that while the ocular evidence was inconsistent regarding the roles of acquitted co-accused, the appellant's participation was corroborated by forensic evidence, specifically the matching of a crime empty with his father's licensed gun. The Court affirmed the conviction but mitigated the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, citing the prior altercation between the parties as a mitigating circumstance. The key principle laid down is that the partial rejection of ocular testimony regarding acquitted co-accused does not automatically necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused if their participation is independently corroborated by forensic or other reliable evidence, and that prior provocation may serve as a ground for mitigating a death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of ocular testimony regarding acquitted co-accused necessarily invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused?
  • Can a prior altercation between the parties serve as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Is the failure of prosecution witnesses to explain blunt weapon injuries on the deceased fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Akram Khan Versus State1988 SCMR 1595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  dying declarationcorroborationbenefit of doubtballistics evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionprocedural omission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentences of the appellants for the murder of Badshah Gul. The appellants were initially tried for the murders of two individuals, but were acquitted regarding one victim. The conviction rested primarily on the dying declaration of the deceased, as the trial court disbelieved the prosecution's eye-witnesses. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the dying declaration without sufficient corroboration, particularly when other evidence, such as forensic ballistics matching crime empties to specific weapons, was excluded by the High Court due to procedural omissions during the examination of the accused. The Supreme Court held that the omission to put specific questions regarding weapon recovery to the accused is not fatal where the accused is represented by counsel and aware of the evidence. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions of appellants whose weapons matched the crime empties, while acquitting the remaining appellants due to a lack of corroborative evidence, granting them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure to put specific questions regarding forensic evidence to an accused fatal to the prosecution's case when the accused is represented by counsel?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on a dying declaration when eye-witnesses have been disbelieved?
  • Does the matching of crime empties with an accused's licensed weapon constitute sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Versus Ghulam Muhammad1988 SCMR 1592 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-26
  murderdeath sentence commutationdelayed disposal of appealcompromisefire-arm injurieseye-witness testimonymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises by special leave from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Mukhtar, for murder, while acquitting his co-accused. The prosecution case was that the appellant along with others opened fire at a railway platform, resulting in the instantaneous deaths of two persons and simple injuries to an eye-witness. The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence, noting the presence of a strong personal motive against the appellant stemming from a prior murder enmity, and the presence of the injured eye-witness whose testimony was corroborated by his own injuries. The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but addressed the question of sentence, considering factors such as the appellant's youth at the time of the offence, a protracted delay in the judicial proceedings spanning over thirteen years, and a compromise entered into with some of the legal heirs of the deceased. Consequently, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of the appellant to imprisonment for life on two counts while maintaining his conviction and other connected sentences, extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the death sentence can be commuted to imprisonment for life in view of prolonged delay in the disposal of the appeal and a compromise with some heirs?
  • Can the testimony of a single injured eye-witness be relied upon for maintaining a conviction in a capital crime?
  • Whether the minority of the accused at the time of the occurrence and long incarceration in the death cell constitute mitigating circumstances for altering a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dewaya Versus State1988 SCMR 1588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  criminal appealbenefit of doubthostile witnessessafe administration of criminal justicefalse implicationmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and abduction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 10(3) and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance) 1979. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be convicted based on the testimony of two witnesses when the prosecution case suffered from significant flaws, including the hostility of most eye-witnesses, unproven motive, and the false implication of other co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that where prosecution evidence is rejected as unreliable regarding most accused, it is unsafe to rely on the same witnesses for the remaining accused without strong corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that widening the scope of accusations to include false allegations casts doubt on the entire prosecution narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt, and ordered his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is it safe to convict remaining accused persons on the testimony of witnesses whose evidence has been rejected regarding other co-accused?
  • Does the inclusion of false allegations in a criminal case cast doubt on the entire prosecution story?
  • What is the impact of a failure to prove motive on the overall reliability of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus Nisar Ahmad1988 SCMR 1587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ismail Versus Abdul Majid1988 SCMR 1586 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Alahmood Ahmad Shah Versus Masihul Islam1988 SCMR 1585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Muzaffar Khan1988 SCMR 1584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus Abdul Latif1988 SCMR 1583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mir Versus Khan1988 SCMR 1581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Versus Zaitoon1988 SCMR 1579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Nabi Bakhsh1988 SCMR 1578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan Versus Mehboob Ahmad Khan,1988 SCMR 1577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
• Matloob Versus Saeeda Khatoon1988 SCMR 1575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-13
  widow's right to evictionSind Rented Premises Ordinancefresh tenancyenhancement of rentreconstruction of premiseslandlord and tenantsummary eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment directing the eviction of a tenant from shop premises. The respondent, a widow, sought eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, which grants special rights to widows for personal use of their property. The core legal questions were whether a mere enhancement of rent constitutes a fresh tenancy, thereby disentitling a widow from invoking the summary eviction procedure, and whether obtaining possession of another shop for reconstruction precludes a landlord from seeking eviction of another tenant. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was entitled to eviction. The Court ruled that a simple enhancement of rent does not create a new tenancy, as the original tenancy remains continuous. Furthermore, obtaining possession for reconstruction does not ipso facto terminate the rights of the landlord, as the landlord holds the reconstructed premises in trust for the original tenant's potential reinstatement. The principle established is that statutory privileges for widows under rent laws are not defeated by mere contractual adjustments of rent, nor by the temporary possession of other premises for reconstruction purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere enhancement of rent constitute a fresh tenancy that disentitles a widow from invoking the summary eviction procedure under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance?
  • Does obtaining possession of premises for reconstruction purposes ipso facto terminate a landlord's right to seek eviction of another tenant?
  • Is a landlord who obtains possession of a building for reconstruction holding that property in trust for the benefit of the ousted tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Javed Versus Abdul Khaliq1988 SCMR 1573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Khizer Hayat1988 SCMR 1572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Versus Muhammad Manshaf1988 SCMR 1571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ghula-M Haider Versus Dosa1988 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Versus Manzoor1988 SCMR 1569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Muhammad Shahid Iqbal1988 SCMR 1568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
• Baqar Versus Muhammad Qasim Khan1988 SCMR 1567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Mst. Sughran Bibi1988 SCMR 1565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-21Read full judgment →
• Fazal Karim Versus Allah Ditta1988 SCMR 1563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali Versus Muhammad Sultan1988 SCMR 1561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Muhammad Rafiq1988 SCMR 1560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. Versus Abdul Aziz Khan1988 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service misconductdismissal from serviceinquiry officerlabour courtleave to appealcross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court upholding the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of Respondent No.1 from bank service for misconduct. The respondent had attempted to secure an interest-free house building loan using a fake sale deed. The Labour Court dismissed his application against dismissal, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal and subsequently the High Court held that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated because the Bank failed to produce the Inquiry Officer as a witness before the Labour Court to be cross-examined regarding the recording of statements in the respondent's absence. The core legal question concerns whether the employer was legally bound to examine the Inquiry Officer as its own witness before the Labour Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer is in law bound to examine the Inquiry Officer before the Labour Court as its own witness to enable cross-examination?
  • Does the failure to produce the Inquiry Officer before the Labour Court vitiate the domestic inquiry proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Wais Muhammad Versus Shah Muhammad1988 SCMR 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Versus Noor Muhammad1988 SCMR 1555 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Versus Muhammad Nawaz Khan1988 SCMR 1554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh Versus Shakeela Beeum1988 SCMR 1553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Versus Ali Gauhar1988 SCMR 1552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Versus Khurshid Bibi1988 SCMR 1550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• Fauji Sugar Mills Versus Market Committee, Tando Muhammad Khan.1988 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Versus Fazeelat Bibi1988 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner1988 SCMR 1546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ahmad Versus Muhammad Iqbal1988 SCMR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-13
  criminal appealmurderre-appraisal of evidenceocular testimonyinterested witnessesacquittalcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the conviction and sentence of death passed against the respondents by the Sessions Judge for the murder of Mehboob Illahi under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the ocular testimony and acquitting the respondents. Upon re-appraising the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly highlighted material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the interested eye-witnesses, as well as unnatural features regarding the roles attributed to the accused. The Supreme Court established the principle that where ocular testimony suffers from serious discrepancies, involves related and interested witnesses without independent corroboration, and attributes unnatural conduct to the accused, the High Court's acquittal based on such appreciation of evidence is fully justified. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in discarding the ocular evidence due to discrepancies and contradictions?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal when the appreciation of evidence by the High Court is sound?
  • What is the evidentiary value of interested and related eye-witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Begum Versus Tariq1988 SCMR 1537 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07
  murderalibidying declarationbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealhospitalizationcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the murder convictions of two appellants under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and confirming their death sentences while maintaining the acquittal of other co-accused. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the convicts beyond reasonable doubt, given the concurrent findings and the defense evidence of alibi and illness. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the convicts, setting aside their convictions and sentences, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the dying declaration was rightly discarded by the High Court for cogent reasons, recovery evidence supported the defense version rather than the prosecution, and the defense evidence conclusively proved that one of the convicts was hospitalized for acute meningitis at the material time, rendering his participation impossible. The key principle laid down is that where medical and documentary evidence substantiates a plea of alibi and serious illness, and material discrepancies weaken the prosecution's ocular and recovery accounts, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt resulting in an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration recorded under suspicious circumstances and without establishing the injured person's lucid state can be safely relied upon?
  • Does unrefuted hospital record establishing a severe illness like acute meningitis at the time of the occurrence substantiate a plea of alibi?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the evaluation of evidence by the High Court when material discrepancies undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of Punjab, Food and Cooperative Department Versus Shamoun Bahadur1988 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Dosa Versus State1988 SCMR 1532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-14
  murderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceunseen occurrenceinterested witnessappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, brought by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested on the ocular account of a single eye-witness, who was a close relative of the deceased, alongside two purported corroborative witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant retreating from the scene after hearing a gunshot. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court observed that the presence of the primary eye-witness at the scene was unnatural and implausible. Furthermore, the Court noted that it was highly improbable for the appellant to have remained at the scene long enough to be identified in lantern light on a dark night by witnesses sleeping thirty yards away. Giving the appellant the benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant's immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained on the testimony of a relative witness whose presence at the scene is unnatural and implausible?
  • Can witnesses who arrive at the scene after hearing a gunshot be relied upon to identify a fleeing suspect in lantern light on a dark night?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to establish the presence of eye-witnesses beyond reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal based on benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhat Bano Versus Muhammad Afzal1988 SCMR 1531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali Versus Khalil Ahmad1988 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →