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.

• Ghulam Sarwar Versus Settlement Commissioner1985 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  urban settlementauction-purchasernon-claimant in possessiontransfer of propertyleave to appealfinding of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing review petitions in an urban settlement case. The core legal question concerns the competing rights of a subsequent auction-purchaser and a non-claimant in possession who had submitted a transfer form. The Supreme Court held that the auction of the property in dispute was illegal because the respondent, being in possession and having submitted an N.C.H. form, was entitled to the transfer of the property prior to any auction taking place. The Court established that a finding of fact regarding the submission of a transfer form, based on official reports and orders, cannot be easily disturbed, and a displaced person in possession who applied for transfer holds a superior right over a subsequent auction-purchaser. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an auction of property can legally take place without disposing of a pending transfer form submitted by a non-claimant in possession?
  • Does a displaced person in possession who applied for transfer have a superior right over a subsequent auction-purchaser?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the submission of a transfer form?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali Versus Sajid Ali1985 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22
  arbitration in second appealreference to arbitrationumpire misconductappellate court powersarbitration actsupreme court appeal as of right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed as of right under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court making an umpire's award the rule of the court during a regular second appeal. The core legal questions involved whether an appellate court possesses the power under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to refer a dispute to arbitration for the first time during a second appeal, whether such reference must be restricted to questions of law, and whether the umpire's award suffered from legal misconduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appellate court has the inherent power to refer a dispute to arbitration as original and appellate proceedings are steps in a series of judicial proceedings possessing an intrinsic unity. Furthermore, the reference is not strictly limited to points of law, and the allegations regarding the umpire's misconduct were unsubstantiated. The court laid down the principle that the statutory powers of a civil court under the Arbitration Act 1940 are available to an appellate court, and that original and appellate proceedings constitute a continuous legal process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the power under section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to refer a dispute to arbitration for the first time during the pendency of a second appeal?
  • Does the scope of a reference to arbitration in a second appeal stand restricted exclusively to questions of law?
  • Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution be curtailed or whittled down by Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • What constitutes legal misconduct by an umpire in failing to consult the record of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamman Versus State1985 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-17
  murderblood-feudeye-witnessinjured witnesscapital punishmentlimitationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected criminal appeals arising from a violent incident on June 8, 1975, in Jhang, where five persons were murdered and others were injured due to a long-standing blood-feud. The trial court convicted seven accused under sections 302/149, 307/149, 449/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death and terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted one co-accused, Waryam, but maintained the convictions and sentences of the remaining six. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the prosecution's evidence, which relied on an independent eye-witness and two injured eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene was indisputable. The Court held that the ocular account was consistent, unshaken by cross-examination, and corroborated by medical evidence and motive. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the convicts' appeal. The complainant's appeal against the acquittal of Waryam was also dismissed as it was barred by limitation by eight days without any sufficient cause shown for condonation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an independent eye-witness, corroborated by injured witnesses and medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can an appeal against acquittal be entertained if it is barred by limitation and no sufficient ground for condonation of delay is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus State1985 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-24
  ocular testimonyinterested witnesscorroborationcriminal appealvicarious liabilityretroactive sentencingmurderabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a conviction for murder and related offenses committed in 1971. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the absence of independent corroboration for interested witnesses rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of interested witnesses and the applicability of sentencing provisions introduced after the commission of the offense. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the deceased's widow was credible and corroborated by the motive and the appellant's abscondence. The Court affirmed that there is no inflexible rule requiring independent corroboration for interested witnesses; rather, corroboration may be found in any circumstance satisfying the court of the witness's truthfulness. Furthermore, the Court held that the sentencing regime under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, could not be applied retroactively to a 1971 offense. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified from imprisonment for life to transportation for life, reflecting the law applicable at the time of the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Is independent corroboration mandatory for the testimony of an interested witness in a criminal trial?
  • Can sentencing provisions introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, be applied retroactively to offenses committed in 1971?
  • Does the presence of discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused person vicariously liable for murder if their participation as a culprit is established, even if no specific fatal injury is attributed to them?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus State1985 SCMR 1922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Versus Tajoo1985 SCMR 1911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Versus State1985 SCMR 1827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Versus State1985 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-05
  leave to appealmurdergrave and sudden provocationbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceocular testimonyhostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Rehman against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Ali Nawaz and his wife Mst. Razia, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's defence version of grave and sudden provocation was reasonably possible, warranting the benefit of the doubt, and whether the same ocular testimony could be relied upon after co-accused were acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the defence plea for cogent reasons and properly distinguished the case of the petitioner from that of the acquitted co-accused. The key principle laid down is that where a plea of grave and sudden provocation is raised in defence, it must be evaluated against the overall evidence, and the testimony of witnesses can be accepted against one accused while being safely distinguished or discarded as to another based on individual roles and evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of prosecution witnesses can be relied upon to convict one accused when co-accused from the same trial have been acquitted?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to the benefit of the doubt where his defence version of grave and sudden provocation is raised?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the rejection of a defence plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus State1985 SCMR 1684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-02
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicideillicit relationsbenefit of doubtcriminal appealsentence reductionmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who killed the deceased upon discovering him in his house at night, was entitled to the benefit of the plea of grave and sudden provocation, despite not having explicitly raised it at the trial. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's own evidence, which established the deceased's illicit relationship with the appellant's wife, sufficiently supported the defense's plea of grave and sudden provocation. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction for murder, substituted it with a conviction under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The judgment affirms that where the facts and circumstances appearing in the prosecution's own case support a plea of grave and sudden provocation, an accused is entitled to the benefit of that plea even if it was not specifically pleaded at the trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted the benefit of a plea of grave and sudden provocation if it was not specifically pleaded at the trial?
  • Does the discovery of a deceased in the appellant's house at night, given an established illicit relationship, constitute sufficient grounds to reduce a murder conviction to culpable homicide?
  • Is an appellate court permitted to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on the circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadija Begum Versus Government of Pakistan1985 SCMR 1677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Versus H. Faiz Muhammad1985 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Versus State1985 SCMR 1659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-02
  reduction of sentencedeath penaltymurder during dacoityrobberyfatal shot uncertaintycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a grant of leave to consider the reduction of the sentence of death to imprisonment for life for the appellants, who were convicted alongside a co-accused for murder committed during the course of a robbery. The core legal question was whether the benefit of extenuating circumstances—specifically, the inability to conclusively prove which of the two appellants fired the fatal shot—warranted a reduction of the death sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that the principle of extending the benefit of doubt regarding the attribution of a fatal shot does not apply to heinous offences like robbery or dacoity, which involve depravity of mind and create widespread public alarm. The key principle laid down is that perpetrators of murders committed during premeditated daylight robberies and dacoities are not entitled to a lesser punishment merely because it is uncertain which co-accused fired the fatal bullet.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of doubt regarding the attribution of a fatal shot can be extended to reduce a death sentence in cases of murder committed during a robbery or dacoity?
  • Does the uncertainty of which co-accused fired the fatal shot constitute an extenuating circumstance justifying a lesser punishment in heinous offences?
  • Are precedents regarding sudden fights or spur-of-the-moment common intentions applicable to premeditated offenses like robbery and dacoity?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh Versus Member, Board of Revenue (Cons.)1985 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sardar Khan Versus Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1985 SCMR 1483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-20
  criminal convictionacquittalremoval from servicecivil servantEfficiency and Discipline Rulesservice tribunalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal filed by a civil servant against his removal from service, which had been upheld by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appellant was initially convicted under anti-corruption laws, leading to his removal from service under rule 9 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules based on that conviction. Subsequently, the High Court set aside his conviction and acquitted him. Despite the acquittal, the Board of Revenue and the Service Tribunal maintained his removal, citing an 'unhonourable' acquittal and a poor service record, while invoking rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Service Rules. The core legal question was whether a removal from service grounded solely on a criminal conviction can survive the setting aside of that conviction on appeal, and whether the concept of 'honourable acquittal' justifies sustaining such removal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that once the conviction forming the sole basis of the removal under rule 9 is set aside, the foundational basis of the removal disappears, rendering the order ineffective. The Court laid down the principle that extraneous factors or a bad service record cannot be used to prop up a void removal order, and rule 7.3(a) deals strictly with pay and allowances during suspension rather than substantive grounds for removal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the setting aside of a criminal conviction on appeal nullify an order of removal from service that was based solely on that conviction?
  • Can rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Service Rules be invoked as a substantive ground for the removal of a civil servant?
  • Is a service authority permitted to support a removal order using additional grounds such as a bad service record when the original foundational conviction has been set aside?
  • Does an acquittal by granting the benefit of doubt preclude a civil servant from reinstatement when removed under rule 9 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus State1985 SCMR 1472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim Versus Provincial Election Authority, Sind1985 SCMR 1338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10
  delimitation of constituenciesconstitutional jurisdictionelection petitiongazette notificationlocal councils electionpolling stations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court which allowed a constitutional petition and ordered a fresh election for K.M.C. Electoral Unit No. 144. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court could interfere in election matters via constitutional jurisdiction when an election petition was available, whether the omission of a block in the official Gazette notification vitiated the election without proof of material effect, and whether the delimitation of constituencies depends strictly upon publication in the official Gazette. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that constituencies stand delimited after the finalization of the list through statutory procedures, and publication in the official Gazette is not a mandatory requirement that undoes valid delimitation. Furthermore, factual disputes regarding voter confusion and low voter turnout could not be resolved without evidence in constitutional jurisdiction and properly belonged to an election petition. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether publication of the final list of electoral units in the official Gazette is a mandatory requirement for the validity of delimitation under the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding voter confusion and material effect on election results in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether an election can be called in question through a constitutional petition when an alternative remedy by way of an election petition is provided by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Versus State1985 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Versus Bagh Din1985 SCMR 1198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus State1985 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Versus State1985 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-14
  criminal petitionmurderreduction of sentenceleave to appealculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a criminal proceeding in which the petitioners, Ahmad and Zulfiqar, along with others, were tried for the double murder of Wali and Hamid Khan. The trial court convicted the petitioners under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced them to death. Upon appeal, the High Court altered their conviction to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced their sentence to imprisonment for life. The petitioners subsequently approached the Supreme Court contending that the reduced sentence of imprisonment was still excessive. The Supreme Court considered the circumstances of the case, held that the petitioners had already been dealt with leniently by the High Court, and declined to interfere with the sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will reduce a sentence of imprisonment upheld by the High Court when the petitioners claim it is excessive?
  • Does a sudden fight arising over a land dispute warrant the alteration of a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus State1985 SCMR 1041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-12
  murderdeath sentencelife imprisonmentimpulsive actgrave and sudden provocationcriminal appealeye-witness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for the murder of the appellant's wife, Mst. Nuran Bibi, for which the Lahore High Court had upheld a death sentence. The appellant initially claimed grave and sudden provocation, alleging he found his wife in a compromising position, but later repudiated this in his jail petition, asserting false implication by relatives. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the three eye-witnesses were natural witnesses whose presence was plausible and whose testimony remained consistent. The Court rejected the appellant's defense of provocation, finding no evidence of prior enmity or ill-will. However, the Court determined that the murder was an impulsive act triggered by the deceased's refusal to accompany the appellant, rather than a premeditated killing. Consequently, while the Court maintained the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, it set aside the death sentence, substituting it with life imprisonment, and granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of a spouse to return to the matrimonial home constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate a murder charge?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the murder is found to be an impulsive act rather than premeditated?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Versus State1984 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-22
  culpable homicideself-defencemurderappreciation of evidencesentence reductioncriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These cross-petitions arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction of Muhammad Shafi under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the acquittal or lesser sentencing of his co-accused, alongside a complainant's revision petition seeking conversion of the conviction to murder under Section 302. The incident stemmed from a street dispute over earthwork and drainage water, leading to a physical altercation wherein the convict inflicted a fatal chhuri blow. The core legal questions involved whether the convict acted in self-defence and whether the conviction ought to be converted to murder. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was rightly rejected as the injuries sustained by the convict were minor and did not reasonably apprehend death or grievous hurt, and that no intention to cause death was established to warrant a conviction for murder. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, upholding the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor injuries on the accused are sufficient to establish the right of self-defence when the opposite party is unarmed?
  • Does the use of a knife by itself conclusively prove an intention to commit murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a High Court's appraisal of evidence and reduction of sentence under Section 304, Part II be interfered with when no legal error is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Lqbal Versus State1984 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-07
  murdercriminal appealocular testimonybenefit of doubtacquittalcorroborationrejection of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for three counts of murder, while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused entered a house and fired at the deceased persons. The trial court and High Court acquitted the other co-accused due to a lack of corroboration and poor ocular evidence, but sustained the appellant's conviction based on partial eyewitness testimony. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained on tainted and conflicting ocular testimony when co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the ocular testimony was unreliable, uncorroborated, and inconsistent with medical evidence. The key principle laid down is that a conviction for murder cannot safely rest on inherently weak and tainted ocular testimony that has been disbelieved regarding co-accused, in the absence of strong, independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on tainted ocular testimony when the same evidence has been rejected regarding co-accused?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a witness who delayed reporting to the police can be relied upon to uphold a death sentence or life imprisonment?
  • Is mere absence of enmity against prosecution witnesses sufficient to bring home a charge of murder when the evidence is inherently unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Versus Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi1984 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-22
  landlord and tenantejectmentstatutory tenancyrent controlindustrial concernwrit jurisdictionsettlement laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding an ejectment order against the appellant, who occupied property formerly associated with an industrial concern. The core legal questions concerned whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the respondents and the appellant, whether the property constituted an industrial concern exempt from rent control jurisdiction, and whether the High Court correctly inferred an oral tenancy in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship was not established. The Court found that the respondents' previous denials of subletting before settlement authorities contradicted their claim of an oral tenancy. Furthermore, the Court held that the mere issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) did not automatically create a statutory tenancy without the necessary declaration under the relevant settlement laws. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Additional District Judge, restoring the Rent Controller's order which had dismissed the ejectment application due to the disputed title. The principle laid down is that a landlord-tenant relationship cannot be inferred in the absence of clear evidence, especially when the alleged landlord has previously denied the existence of such a tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) automatically create a statutory tenancy under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction establish the existence of an oral tenancy when no such finding was made by the lower courts and evidence is lacking?
  • Is an objection regarding the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller based on the nature of the premises as an industrial concern maintainable if raised for the first time in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Australasia Bank Ltd1984 SCMR 919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29
  letters of creditdevaluation of sterlingpromissory noteforeign exchangemortgaged propertybanking law
  Summary & questions settled

  This certificated appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent bank against the appellants for the recovery of money through the sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties. The claim was based on a promissory note and collateral securities executed by the defendants to cover a shortfall caused by the devaluation of sterling, after the bank opened letters of credit for importing goods from countries outside the sterling area. The trial court decreed the suit only partially, but the High Court allowed the bank's appeal and decreed the suit in full. The core legal question concerned the liability of the importer for the exchange rate shortfall resulting from the devaluation of sterling when an intermediary bank in the sterling area was utilized pursuant to prevailing banking practices and the terms of the letters of credit. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were liable under the terms of the contract and indemnity clauses to bear the loss caused by the devaluation and that they were estopped by their conduct from challenging the validity of the promissory note. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an importer is liable for a shortfall arising from the devaluation of sterling when letters of credit for imports from outside the sterling area are routed through an intermediary bank in the sterling area?
  • At what point in time does the liability of an importer to pay for goods under a letter of credit crystallize with respect to the exchange rate?
  • Can an importer challenge the validity of a promissory note and collateral security on the grounds of undue influence after having accepted the goods and remained silent without written protest?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad Versus Nawab1984 SCMR 914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-27
  murderacquittalcircumstantial evidenceocular evidencebenefit of doubtleave to appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a Lahore High Court judgment acquitting respondents in a murder case. The core legal question is whether an accused can be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence after the rejection of ocular testimony, and whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent, Nawab, without considering such circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the acquittal of other respondents was justified due to the unreliability of eye-witnesses, the case against Nawab required further examination. The Court observed that circumstantial evidence—including the respondent's abscondence, the presence of a blood trail leading to his house, the fabrication of medical evidence, and the existence of a contemporaneous injury—was not adequately evaluated by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against Nawab's acquittal to determine if this evidence warranted conviction. The key principle established is that even where ocular testimony is rejected, a court must evaluate whether available circumstantial evidence is wholly incompatible with the accused's innocence before confirming an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court convict an accused based on circumstantial evidence if the ocular testimony is rejected?
  • Does the fabrication of medical evidence by an accused constitute a relevant circumstance for conviction?
  • Is an appellate court required to evaluate circumstantial evidence even after rejecting eye-witness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Versus Mukkammil Shah1984 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19
  adverse possessiontenant-at-willrevenue recordJamabandires judicatapossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a suit for possession of land instituted by respondents against mortgagees and subsequent defendants claiming adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the petitioners were merely tenants-at-will. Although the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and held that the petitioners had perfected title through adverse possession, the Peshawar High Court restored the trial court's decree upon revision, concluding from the revenue records that the petitioners were recorded as tenants-at-will and paying no rent did not confer ownership. The Supreme Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that consistent entries in Jamabandis designating the petitioners as tenants and the original owners in the ownership column negated the claim of adverse possession. Furthermore, the plea of res judicata could not be entertained for the first time before the apex court when it was not raised in the lower courts and lacked necessary foundational documents and parties. The key principle laid down is that long-term possession as a tenant without paying rent does not mature into adverse possession or ownership against the landlord.

  Questions settled

  • Does long-term possession of land as a tenant without paying rent ripen into ownership by adverse possession?
  • Can a plea of res judicata be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not pleaded in the lower courts?
  • Do entries in the revenue record showing a party in the column of tenants support a claim of ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan Versus Zain Khan1984 SCMR 910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-30
  dismissal in defaultnon-appearancerestoration of appealgross negligenceappellate discretionland acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court refusing to restore an appeal dismissed in default for non-appearance. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court's dismissal of the Regular First Appeal under Order XLI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without considering the merits was a proper exercise of discretion, and whether gross negligence by the appellant's counsel in failing to appear warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's power under Order XLI, rule 17 to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance is plenary and discretionary, and where an appellant or their counsel has been grossly negligent and failed to appear on dates fixed—including on a restoration application fixed at their own request—the appellate court's refusal to restore the appeal does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The key principle laid down is that an appellant cannot claim leniency or challenge the exercise of judicial discretion against them when they or their counsel exhibit gross negligence and lack of vigilance in prosecuting the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is bound to adjourn an appeal or whether it has plenary discretion to dismiss it under Order XLI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the event of the appellant's non-appearance?
  • Does the failure of a counsel to appear on multiple dates, including a date fixed at their own request for a restoration application, constitute sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to interfere with the High Court's refusal to restore an appeal?
  • Can an appellant avoid the consequences of non-appearance by merely asserting that their counsel failed to inform them of the hearing date?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Malik Versus State1984 SCMR 908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-12
  zina-bil-jabrHudood lawsappreciation of evidenceco-accused acquittalleave to appealcriminal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner, Shahid Malik, was convicted by the Sessions Judge for committing zina-bil-jabr against a staff nurse and sentenced to fifteen years' rigorous imprisonment, thirty stripes, and a fine. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction and sentence of imprisonment and stripes but set aside the fine, holding that it was not legally permissible under the relevant provision. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the acquittal of his co-accused mother, based on the same witness testimony, necessitated his own acquittal. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that the acquittal of the co-accused did not undermine the credibility of the evidence against the petitioner. The Court affirmed that the testimony of witnesses could be relied upon to convict the principal offender even if the co-accused was acquitted due to a lack of evidence regarding conspiracy. The petition was dismissed, and the suspension of the sentence of stripes was withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on the same witness testimony automatically invalidate the conviction of the principal offender?
  • Can a fine be imposed for a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Is the failure of a witness to rescue a victim sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftaba Versus Raza Khan1984 SCMR 906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-02
  Shamilat landinheritancewilladverse possessionco-sharersmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of a deceased person's estate, specifically involving Shamilat land claimed by the appellants under a will and contested by respondents seeking a 3/8th share. The core legal question was whether the appellants' claim to the Shamilat land was barred under section 3 of the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959, and whether title could be acquired through adverse possession among co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' claim was hit by section 3 of the Ordinance and that the doctrine of adverse possession did not apply among co-sharers, dismissing the appeal. The key principles laid down are that disposition of Shamilat land is subject to statutory restrictions under the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959, and adverse possession cannot be claimed amongst co-sharers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether title to Shamilat land can be acquired through adverse possession amongst co-sharers?
  • Does the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959 apply to the disposition of Shamilat land claimed under a will?
  • Whether a claim to Shamilat land is hit by section 3 of the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959 in the absence of a competent court decision to the contrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza Shah Versus State1984 SCMR 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-13
  hudoodzinakidnappingabductionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealstatement under section 164
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by a convict arises as a matter of right under Article 203-F of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging his conviction and enhanced sentence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant, a bus driver, was initially convicted by the trial court under sections 10(3) and 11 of the Ordinance. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court acquitted him under section 10(3) but enhanced his sentence under section 11 to life imprisonment, stripes, and fine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the essential ingredients of the offence under section 11 were established beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the victim's initial statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which omitted allegations against the appellant and indicated his conduct may have been one of rescuing or assisting the victim. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and held that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary intent under section 11, giving the appellant the benefit of reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the essential ingredients of an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 are established when the initial statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 fails to attribute incriminating conduct or intent to the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt where his conduct is equally consistent with rescuing the victim rather than abducting or seducing her?
  • Can a conviction under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be sustained in the absence of proof of the requisite statutory intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Versus Rent Controller, Rawalpindi1984 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-30
  landlord and tenantevictiondenial of titledefault in payment of rentevacuee propertyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld his eviction from a residential house. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to contest the quantum of rent or prove that non-payment of rent was not willful after the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, and whether the requisite statutory notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was served. The Supreme Court held that where a tenant mala fide and contumaciously denies the landlord's title and admits non-payment of rent, and where previous litigation has conclusively settled the question of ownership and transfer, no further inquiry or order regarding default is necessary, and the tenant is liable to immediate eviction. Furthermore, the concurrent finding regarding the service of notice was upheld. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant who mala fide denies the relationship of landlord and tenant is entitled to a further opportunity to contest the quantum of rent or show that default was not willful?
  • Is an order of eviction justified without making a tentative rent order when default in the payment of rent is admitted and the denial of title is rejected?
  • Whether notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was duly served upon the occupant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Safahuddin1984 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
• Gbulam Daud Versus State1984 SCMR 898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim Versus State1984 SCMR 896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-18
  murderjudicial confessionretracted confessionlast seencriminal appealcircumstantial evidencerecoveries
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34, P. P. C., for the murder of Mst. Jamala. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, including a judicial confession, last-seen evidence, recoveries, and a false first information report lodged by the appellant, was sufficient to sustain his conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence was indeed sufficient, noting that the retracted judicial confession was voluntary and truthful, supported by recoveries of blood-stained articles at the appellant's instance, the abscondence of co-accused, and corroborative testimony regarding motive. The key principle laid down is that a retracted judicial confession, when found voluntary and corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence such as recoveries and the conduct of the accused, forms a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can be relied upon for conviction if duly corroborated?
  • Is the evidence of last seen together, coupled with a false first information report and recoveries, sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Khan Versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence1984 SCMR 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Versus State1984 SCMR 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Begum Versus Muhammad Ishaq1984 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-15
  condonation of delaylimitationPardahnashin ladypecuniary jurisdictioncounsel negligencespecific performancewrong forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a High Court order dismissing an appeal as time-barred. The appellants challenged a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a bungalow. The appellants had initially filed their appeal in the District Court, which lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, and subsequently refiled in the High Court after the limitation period had expired. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal in the correct forum should be condoned, particularly given the appellant's claim of being a 'Pardahnashin' lady misled by her counsel's advice. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's status as a 'Pardahnashin' lady did not automatically entitle her to condonation of delay. The Court affirmed that gross negligence by counsel in failing to identify the correct forum for an appeal, despite clear statutory provisions, does not constitute a valid ground for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The principle established is that a client cannot seek condonation of delay based on counsel's gross negligence; the remedy for such professional failure lies in a suit for damages against the counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of a 'Pardahnashin' lady automatically entitle a litigant to condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
  • Can gross negligence by a counsel in filing an appeal in the wrong forum constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a client who suffers loss due to their counsel's gross negligence in legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Versus State1984 SCMR 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-20
  private defencemitigation of sentencemischiefexcessive forcecommutation of sentenceproperty disputeculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of three individuals and sentenced to death. The incident arose from a dispute over the construction of a wall by the deceased, which obstructed the appellant's access to his portion of a shared property. Following an altercation involving verbal abuse and the throwing of clods of earth, the appellant killed the three deceased using a knife. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant acted in self-defence or exceeded that right. The Court held that while the deceased's actions regarding the property constituted mischief under Section 425 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the appellant faced an initial physical attack, the appellant's use of force was excessive and cruel, thereby exceeding the right of private defence. The Court affirmed the conviction but concluded that the absence of premeditation or prior malice rendered the death penalty inappropriate. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, ordering them to run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the construction of a wall that obstructs access to a shared property constitute mischief under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a person claim the right of private defence when they have exceeded the force necessary to protect their person or property?
  • Is the death penalty appropriate in a murder case where there is no evidence of premeditation or prior malice?
  • Does the right of private defence against property extend to causing the death of an aggressor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq Versus Pakistan1984 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Asaf Zafar Versus Government of Punjab1984 SCMR 884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Versus Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi1984 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
• Haroon Versus Umar Ahmed1984 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-04
  ejectmentbona fide requirementrent appealconcurrent findings of factlandlord-tenant disputeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which dismissed the petitioner's First Rent Appeal against an ejectment order. The respondent landlord had originally sought the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop premises, citing personal and bona fide requirement for his own occupation, as well as for his children and grandchildren, alongside allegations of tenancy infringement. The Rent Controller initially allowed the ejectment application, finding the landlord's requirement to be bona fide. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed this decision, concluding that the findings were supported by the evidence on record. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged these findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. Emphasizing that there were concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement, the Court determined that these findings did not raise any substantial question of law and were therefore unexceptionable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Do concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises constitute a question of law suitable for Supreme Court review?
  • Can a landlord obtain an ejectment order based on the personal and bona fide requirement of the premises for himself and his descendants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Versus Sakina Begum1984 SCMR 881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• Superintendent of Police Headquarter, Lahore Versus Muhammad Latif1984 SCMR 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Anjuman Talim-Ul-Islam1984 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Muhammad Ayub1984 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousf Versus Mumtaz Bibi Tarin1984 SCMR 874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• Nur Sultan Versus Khadim Hussain1984 SCMR 873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-07
  culpable homicideintention to killalteration of chargeconcurrent findingsre-appraisal of evidencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the respondents for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder. The respondents were originally tried and convicted by a Magistrate for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically for causing the death of the deceased and injuries to others. The complainant sought to alter the charge to murder (Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860), arguing that the trial court and subsequently the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offense. The core legal question was whether the appellate court correctly affirmed the lower court's finding that there was no premeditated intention to kill, thereby justifying the conviction under Section 304 rather than Section 302. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts concurrently found no intention to kill based on the evidence—noting the incident was not premeditated and involved a single fatal blow—it would not re-appraise the evidence. The petition was dismissed as the findings were supported by the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence regarding the intention to kill when lower courts have reached concurrent findings?
  • Is a trial court required to alter a charge to murder if the evidence does not disclose an intention to kill?
  • Does a single fatal blow in a non-premeditated scuffle necessarily establish an intention to commit murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Sbarif Masih Versus Jamila Marry1984 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin Versus State1984 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-09
  explosive substancesmalicious intentpossession of explosivesburden of proofappellate poweralteration of convictionreasonable suspicion
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court under sections 3 and 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, following an accidental explosion in his residence that injured him and his minor son. The core legal question was whether the evidence established the necessary elements of malicious intent or specific intent to endanger life required for convictions under sections 3 and 4(b). The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite malicious intent or specific intent for sections 3 and 4(b), as the appellant himself suffered injuries, negating the element of malice. However, the Court found the appellant’s possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances satisfied the requirements of section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Court laid down the principle that section 5 does not require strict proof of mala fide intent, only that surrounding circumstances create a reasonable suspicion of unlawful possession, shifting the burden of rebuttal to the accused. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to section 5 and reduced the sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the accidental injury of the accused in an explosion negate the element of 'maliciously' causing an explosion under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Does Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, require proof of specific mala fide intent, or is reasonable suspicion of unlawful possession sufficient?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction to a section for which the trial court did not explicitly impose a sentence, provided the accused was charged under that section?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Versus Punjab Services Tribunal1984 SCMR 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Versus Chief Administratie Officer, G H Q, Rawalpindi1984 SCMR 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad Versus Province of Punjab1984 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02
  abatement of appealcondonation of delaylegal representativesdeath of appellantSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the sole appellant, Din Muhammad, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings on 12-12-1978. The core legal question was whether the delay of nearly forty-four months in filing an application for setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives on record could be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. Holding that no sufficient cause was shown for the extraordinary delay, the Court decided that the delay could not be condoned. The key principle laid down is that where an appeal abates due to the death of a party and no sufficient cause is established for a prolonged failure to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed limitation period, the abatement will not be set aside and the appeal stands disposed of as abated.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal abate if an application to bring legal representatives on record is not filed within the prescribed period?
  • Can a delay of nearly forty-four months in seeking to set aside abatement be condoned without sufficient cause?
  • How is an appeal disposed of when an application for condonation of delay in bringing legal representatives on record is rejected?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh Versus Federal Land Commission1984 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• Atique Hussain Versus Faqir Muhammad1984 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-16
  interim injunctionconstruction disputeright of supportbuilding safetycourt-appointed expertleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing an appeal concerning competing suits for injunctions regarding construction work on a building in Karachi. The petitioners, occupants of the upper floors, sought to restrain the respondents, owners of the ground floor, from making alterations. Conversely, a building contractor filed a suit seeking to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the construction. The High Court granted an injunction allowing the construction, subject to the condition that a licensed architect appointed by the Nazir of the High Court inspect the premises to certify that the proposed work would not adversely affect the safety of the upper floors. The petitioners challenged this, arguing they were not informed of the inspection or the resulting certificate. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's condition adequately safeguarded the petitioners' interests. It emphasized that once the court-ordered safeguard was implemented, the burden lay on the petitioners to raise objections if they were dissatisfied with the architect's findings. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court-ordered inspection by a licensed architect is a sufficient safeguard for occupants of upper floors during ground floor construction?
  • Is it the responsibility of the party benefiting from a court-ordered condition to ensure its compliance or object to its execution?
  • Can an injunction against interference with construction be sustained if the court imposes protective conditions for the safety of other occupants?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Versus State B1984 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-21
  murderacid throwingtransferred malicemens reaimminently dangerous actsentence commutationcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of an infant who was accidentally injured by sulfuric acid intended for the child's mother. The core legal question was whether the conviction for murder was sustainable given that the child's death was accidental, and whether clause fourthly of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied regarding the requisite degree of knowledge. The Supreme Court held that the conviction for murder under section 302 was fully justified as the appellant had direct knowledge of the child's presence and the imminently dangerous nature of throwing corrosive acid. However, considering that the appellant was not convicted of attempting the life of the principal victim, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the conviction. The key principle laid down is that where an accused throws corrosive acid with the knowledge that a child is present in the lap of the primary target, the resulting death falls squarely within clause fourthly of section 300, importing direct knowledge of the fatal consequences regardless of whether the primary intent was directed at the mother.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the accidental death of a child caused by acid intended for another person constitutes murder under clause fourthly of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does throwing corrosive acid at a person holding an infant establish the requisite degree of knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death?
  • Can a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life be awarded instead of death when the accused had no intention to kill the primary target but caused a bystander's death?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee Versus Muhammad Idris Qureshi1984 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Versus State1984 SCMR 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-26
  murderdeath sentencequantum of sentencecompromisecompensationdying declarationmitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that confirmed the appellant's conviction and death sentence for murder. The primary legal question concerned the appropriateness of the death penalty, specifically whether a compromise between the parties and the payment of compensation could justify a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court, having previously granted leave to appeal solely on the quantum of sentence, examined the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented. The Court found that the conviction was soundly based on ocular evidence and a dying declaration. However, upon being satisfied that a genuine compromise had been reached and that adequate compensation had been paid to the heirs of the deceased, the Court exercised its discretion to mitigate the punishment. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentence, substituting it with life imprisonment, and enhanced the fine to be paid as compensation to the heirs. This decision reinforces the principle that a bona fide compromise and restitution to the victim's family are significant factors in judicial sentencing discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties and payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a dying declaration admissible and reliable even if the deceased suffered injuries to the mouth and jaws?
  • Does the payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased constitute a valid basis for enhancing a fine in lieu of a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Versus Abdul Hamid1984 SCMR 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Zaman Versus Wahab Nur1984 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05
  purdahnashin ladypower of attorneyfraudsale of landmutationletters patent appealcertificate of fitness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed Letters Patent Appeals arising from a property dispute. The core legal questions involve the validity of a sale of land executed through a general attorney on behalf of a purdahnashin lady, the effect of subsequent cancellation of the power-of-attorney, and the competency of a Letters Patent Appeal without a certificate from the Single Judge. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court that the power-of-attorney was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation without explaining its contents to the purdahnashin lady, and that no consideration was received by her. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable without the requisite certificate of the Single Judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, holding that the sale transactions based on the fraudulent power-of-attorney were void and that the procedural requirement of a certificate for a Letters Patent Appeal is mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sale executed through a power-of-attorney obtained from a purdahnashin lady by fraud and without explaining its contents is valid?
  • Is a Letters Patent Appeal competent against a Single Bench judgment without a certificate from the learned Single Judge?
  • What is the effect of the cancellation of a power-of-attorney after a disputed property transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeeruddin Versus Abdul Rashid1984 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-17
  leave to appealtentative rentchronic defaultstriking off defenceejectmenttenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld his eviction on the ground of chronic default in complying with rent deposit orders. An ejectment application was filed against the petitioner alleging default in rent payment since 1966. The Rent Controller fixed a tentative rate of rent and directed the deposit of arrears and future rent. Upon the petitioner's failure to comply, his defense was struck off and his ejectment was ordered. Subsequent appeals before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were similarly dismissed after the petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with deposit orders and offered no satisfactory explanation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether any legal error existed in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Controller and the High Court. The Court held that the dismissal of the second appeal was eminently justified given the admitted non-compliance and chronic default without explanation. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down that consistent unexcused default in complying with tentative rent fixation orders warrants the striking off of defense and eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to tentatively fix the rate of rent when a dispute arises regarding the rate of rent?
  • Does consistent non-compliance with rent deposit orders passed under the Rent Restriction Ordinance justify striking off a tenant's defence?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a second appeal against eviction when the tenant fails to deposit arrears and future rent as ordered?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhdoom Versus State1984 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-07
  triple murdercapital punishmentcommutation of death sentencebenefit of doubtcorroboration of eyewitnessesinadequate motiveappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentences of two appellants, Muhammad Makhdoom and Muhammad Munir, convicted for a triple murder along with related charges. The core legal questions involved the necessity of corroborating eyewitness testimony in cases of long-standing enmity and the appropriateness of the extreme penalty of death under the circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the participation of one appellant, Muhammad Munir, and his absconding brother was established beyond doubt, the participation of the other appellant, Muhammad Makhdoom, suffered from major evidentiary doubts and inconsistencies, leading to his acquittal. Regarding sentence, the Court held that the failure of the prosecution to prove an adequate motive and the suppression of the immediate cause of the violent incident warranted commuting the death sentence of Muhammad Munir to transportation for life. The key principles laid down relate to the standard of proof required for corroboration in partisan witness testimonies, the evaluation of mitigated culpability due to concealed immediate provocation, and the strict scrutiny of individual roles in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether eyewitness testimony requires corroboration in cases involving long-standing enmity and related witnesses?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an adequate motive justify commuting a death sentence to transportation for life?
  • Can the participation of an accused be affirmed when medical evidence contradicts the specific role attributed to him?
  • What is the effect on sentencing when the prosecution conceals the immediate cause of a violent occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansu Khan Versus Settlement Commissioner (Lands)1984 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq Versus Hamidullah1984 SCMR 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Nawaz Versus Punjab Service Tribunal1984 SCMR 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdu, Sattar Alias Babu Versus State1984 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-12
  sentence reductiondeath sentencemitigating circumstancegrave and sudden provocationcriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of a leave granted solely to consider the question of sentence imposed upon the appellant, Abdus Sattar. The core legal question was whether the grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased slapping the appellant earlier at a village panchayat warranted mitigating the death sentence to imprisonment for life, particularly when a similar mitigating circumstance had been extended to a co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the slap administered by the deceased amounted to a provocation, the benefit of which ought to have been extended to the appellant, especially since it was extended to his elder brother. The Court ruled that the slapping constituted a mitigating circumstance rendering the extreme penalty of death undeserved. Consequently, the Supreme Court reduced the appellant's sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while dismissing the appeal in all other respects. The key principle laid down is that public insult and slapping at a village panchayat by an adversary can constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a public slap received at a village panchayat constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the benefit of provocation extended to a co-accused should also be extended to the principal accused who directly suffered the insult?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan Versus State1984 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-10
  culpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden quarrelheat of passionfree fightsuppression of injuriesmurder conviction alteredself-defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had set aside the acquittal of the appellant by the trial court and convicted him under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The incident occurred inside a police station where rival parties had arrived following an earlier violent clash. During a verbal altercation, the appellant inflicted a single fatal knife wound on the deceased. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances, noting the absence of premeditation, the presence of injuries on the accused side which the police witnesses had suppressed, and the sudden heat of passion arising from the confrontation. The core legal question was whether the offense constituted premeditated murder under section 302 or fell within the exceptions for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances attracted Exception IV of section 300, punishable under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code. The court accordingly partially allowed the appeal, altering the conviction to section 304, Part I, and reducing the sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden fight arising from a verbal altercation at a police station attract Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party by eyewitnesses affects the reliability of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to section 304 Part I when the act was committed without premeditation in the heat of passion?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Versus State1984 SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-19
  jail appealmedical evidenceocular testimonycommon intentioncontradiction in evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges the conviction of the appellants, Sardar and Dildar, primarily on the ground of an alleged contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony regarding the weapon used against the deceased. The core legal question is whether discrepancies in weapon attribution and medical findings vitiate the eyewitness testimony and the application of common intention. The court held that there was no material discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence, noting that the injured eyewitness corroborated the use of the .12 bore pistol by one of the appellants, and that both appellants were present and active during the incident. The court laid down the principle that the presence of an accused and active participation, along with corroborative medical evidence on another injured witness, sufficiently sustains a conviction under common intention, even if specific shots aimed at the deceased missed or left no corresponding injuries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding weapon use is sufficient to set aside a conviction?
  • Does the absence of specific weapon injuries on a deceased person exonerate an accused shown to be present and participating with common intention?
  • Whether leave to appeal can be recalled upon re-evaluation of the prosecution and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Anglo-Arabic College and School Versus Deputy Settlement Commissioner1984 SCMR 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Hussain Versus Saeed Ahmad Butt1984 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-16
  leave to appealre-examination of witnessestransfer of Sessions Judgematerial prejudicecriminal trialpredecessor evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Baluchistan setting aside a trial court's order for the re-examination of prosecution witnesses following the transfer of the previous Sessions Judge. The core legal question is whether a Sessions Judge is legally mandated to recall and re-examine witnesses previously recorded by a predecessor upon the engagement of new counsel or change of judge, or whether reliance on prior testimony is permissible. The Supreme Court held that under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as amended, a Sessions Judge may act on evidence recorded by a predecessor and is not bound to re-examine witnesses unless the accused is materially prejudiced. The key principle laid down is that the mere change of a trial judge or engagement of a new counsel does not automatically entitle the accused to a de novo trial or the re-examination of already recorded witnesses unless material prejudice is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Sessions Judge is bound to re-examine witnesses recorded by a predecessor upon a change of judge?
  • Does the engagement of a new counsel by the accused automatically warrant the recall of prosecution witnesses already examined?
  • Under what circumstances may a High Court order a new trial or the re-examination of witnesses under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq Versus State1984 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Versus State1984 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq Versus Deputy Settlement Commissioner1984 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Sher Ahmed1984 SCMR 419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-14
  acquittalconcurrent findings of factreappraisal of evidencecriminal revisionabsconding accusedleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Muhammad Aslam, challenging the acquittal of the respondents, Sher Ahmad and Mumtaz alias Taj, who were previously acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Attock, for the murder of Ashraf. The High Court had subsequently dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against that acquittal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel sought a reappraisal of the evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to raise any question of law or provide sufficient grounds to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the acquittal. The Court further clarified that this dismissal would not prejudice or affect the pending case against the third accused, Muhammad Akram, who remained an absconder. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically undertake a fresh reappraisal of evidence in the absence of a substantial question of law or compelling reasons to disturb concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in an acquittal case where no question of law is raised?
  • Does the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused affect the case of an absconding co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Versus State1984 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad Versus Nazar Hussain Khan1984 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-08
  pre-emptioncontingent decreedeposit of decretal amountextension of timeinterim stay orderdismissal in defaultappellate court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a grant of leave to appeal to examine whether a pre-emptor-decree-holder's first appeal in the High Court against a pre-emption decree regarding the price of land could survive the non-compliance with the terms of the decree which entailed the dismissal of their suit. The appellants challenged the High Court's order holding that the appeal survived despite a prior dismissal in default of an interim stay application regarding the deposit of the decretal amount. The core legal question was whether the interim refusal to restore a default dismissal of a stay application exhausts the appellate court's discretion to subsequently consider the extension of time for depositing the decretal amount at the final disposal stage or upon an application. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that provisional or interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of an appeal do not exhaust the primary and extensive power of the appellate court to adjudicate the cause finally and meaningfully on its merits, including the grant of reasonable time to deposit the decretal amount. The Court reaffirmed that while a pre-emptor files an appeal without complying with a contingent decree at their own peril, the appellate court retains the discretion to extend time or preserve the appeal until its final hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emptor's first appeal against a pre-emption decree survives non-compliance with the conditional deposit terms of the trial court decree?
  • Does the refusal by an appellate court to restore a dismissed interim stay application exhaust its power to subsequently grant an extension of time for depositing the decretal amount?
  • Can an appellate court consider and grant an extension of time for depositing the decretal amount at the final hearing of a pre-emption appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Versus State1984 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-06
  murdersolitary eye-witnessdelayed FIRcircumstantial evidencefire-arms expertcriminal appealmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and his sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the solitary, interested ocular testimony of the complainant, in the face of alleged discrepancies regarding the First Information Report delay, motive, and minor medical inconsistencies, could lawfully form the sole basis of the murder conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the minor discrepancies in the complainant's testimony were immaterial and that his natural presence, lack of personal animus, and corroboration by unblemished circumstantial weapon recovery evidence sufficiently established guilt. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies regarding details and delay in lodging the First Information Report do not impair the credibility of a natural and otherwise trustworthy ocular witness, especially when corroborated by reliable forensic and circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the solitary statement of an interested ocular witness form the sole basis of a murder conviction?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report necessarily undermine the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Whether minor discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence are sufficient to discard an otherwise reliable eye-witness?
  • Is circumstantial evidence consisting of a weapon recovery rendered inadmissible solely due to a delay in despatching the empty cartridge to the forensic laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Kishwar Versus Ikramullah1984 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-23
  leave to appealmurder referencedying declarationreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealacquittalsentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment in a murder case, where the High Court had acquitted one co-accused and commuted the death sentence of the other to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s reappraisal of the evidence, including the dying declaration and oral testimony, was legally sound and whether the acquittal and sentence reduction were justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s analysis of the evidence was proper and unexceptionable. The Court determined that the High Court correctly identified and excluded exaggerations and embellishments in the prosecution's case, ensuring the safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's reappraisal of evidence in criminal matters where the lower court has correctly analyzed the facts, particularly in cases involving counter-reports and sudden occurrences, provided no significant question of law is raised.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's reappraisal of evidence in a murder appeal if the analysis is found to be proper?
  • Can the same evidence be used to convict one accused while being disbelieved regarding another co-accused?
  • Is the High Court justified in commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment based on its analysis of the evidence and the nature of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhtina Versus Saltnat1984 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan Versus Director, PCSIR Laboratories, Peshawar University1984 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Versus State1984 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtinterested witnesscommon objectgrievous hurtattempt to murderconviction maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was tried for trespassing and attempting to cause death, resulting in grievous injury to a victim. While the trial court convicted the petitioner and co-accused, the High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused while maintaining the petitioner's conviction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of his co-accused, and whether the prosecution evidence, being allegedly interested, required independent corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was directly charged and specifically identified for causing a severe head injury resulting in partial paralysis. The Court found no merit in the argument regarding the inconsistency of the acquittal of co-accused, as the evidence against the petitioner was distinct and sufficient. The principle affirmed is that where direct, specific evidence of a distinct criminal act exists against an accused, a conviction may be maintained even if co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained against one accused when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Does the testimony of an interested witness require independent corroboration in all criminal cases?
  • Is a conviction for attempted murder sustainable where the accused is specifically identified for causing grievous injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan Versus Muhammad Anwar1984 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-23
  leave to appealculpable homicidemedical evidencecause of deathperitonitiscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that acquitted certain respondents of murder charges and modified convictions for hurt. The core legal question involves whether the High Court correctly appraised medical evidence regarding the cause of death—specifically, whether stab wounds to the abdomen, which led to peritonitis, constituted an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death under the definition of culpable homicide. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the acquittal of one respondent (Mir Zaman) to re-examine the evidence regarding the nature of the injury and the intent behind the act, referencing the principle that death caused by bodily injury is attributable to the assailant even if medical treatment might have prevented it. Conversely, the Court refused leave to appeal regarding the acquittal of the other respondents. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of evaluating medical evidence in the context of statutory definitions of homicide and the causal link between injury and death.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury that leads to peritonitis and subsequent death constitute an act sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death?
  • Can a court determine the nature of a fatal injury even if the medical expert does not explicitly state it is sufficient to cause death?
  • Is a person who causes a bodily injury deemed to have caused the death even if the death might have been prevented by skillful medical treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan Versus Muhammad Yaqub1984 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-23
  criminal appealmurderacquittalocular testimonyinterested witnesschance witnessleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Malik Khan, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction and death sentence/imprisonment for life of the respondents, Muhammad Yaqub and Samandar Khan, for the murder of the complainant's brother, Amir Hussain, and acquitted them. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the ocular testimony and acquitting the respondents. The Supreme Court held that where ocular evidence requires strictest scrutiny and the prosecution witnesses are interested or chance witnesses with existing enmities, and where the joinder of accused appears artificial without proof of a common cause or conspiracy, the High Court's view acquitting the accused is a possible view requiring no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly rejected, affirming that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal based on a plausible view of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on a plausible view of the evidence taken by the High Court?
  • Does ocular testimony in a capital case require the strictest possible scrutiny when coming from interested or chance witnesses?
  • How should evidence be examined when there is a danger of artificial joinder of accused persons based on separate enmities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus State1984 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1984 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-31
  Supreme Court RulesSingle Benchcondonation of delayinterim reliefbail pending appealleave to appealZina
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a reference before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the competence of a Single Bench in Chambers to consider an application for interim relief, specifically bail and suspension of sentence, when the main petition for leave to appeal is prima facie time-barred and the application for condonation of delay is pending. The core legal question addressed is whether a Single Judge in Chambers can grant interim relief before the delay in filing the main petition is condoned. The Court held that while the power to condone delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal is not vested in a Single Bench (as 'and' in the relevant rule is read conjunctively, making refusal or condonation equivalent to disposal reserved for a larger bench), the power of a Single Bench to pass interim orders such as bail or stay of execution under specific clauses of the Supreme Court Rules is not restricted by the mere fact that the main petition is time-barred. Consequently, leave to appeal was also granted on merits to re-appraise the evidence regarding Zina charges where public witnesses were hostile and police enmity was alleged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Single Bench in Chamber can deal with the question of interim relief if the petition is prima facie time-barred and the application for condonation of delay is yet to be heard and disposed of?
  • Does the power of a Single Bench to pass an interim order for grant of bail or stay of execution get clogged by the main petition being apparently filed beyond the prescribed time?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Centrally Administered Tribal Area (Cata) Development Corporation, Peshawar Versus Malikzada Muhammad Akbar1984 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ex parte decreestay of executionmoney decreeprocedural negligencesecurity for decretal amountcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two connected proceedings: a petition for special leave to appeal against an order setting aside an ex parte decree, and an appeal against an order staying execution of a money decree. In the first matter, the petitioners failed to seek a stay of proceedings before the trial court, resulting in the passing of a decree and rendering the petition infructuous. The Supreme Court dismissed this petition, noting the petitioners' own negligence. In the second matter, the High Court had stayed the execution of a money decree without requiring the deposit of the decretal amount or security. The Supreme Court held that this violated the proviso to Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court established the principle that the execution of a money decree cannot be stayed without ordering the deposit of the decretal amount in court or the furnishing of sufficient security. Consequently, the Court modified the stay order, conditioning it upon the deposit of the decretal amount, while allowing the appellant to withdraw it against a bank guarantee.

  Questions settled

  • Can the execution of a money decree be stayed without requiring the deposit of the decretal amount or the furnishing of security?
  • Does a failure to seek a stay of proceedings in the trial court render a petition for special leave to appeal against an interlocutory order infructuous upon the passing of a final decree?
  • What is the effect of failing to comply with the proviso to Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the stay of execution of a money decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Versus State1984 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-19
  leave to appealZina-bil-Jabrhostile witnessappreciation of evidencecompromisesentence reductionFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which upheld the petitioner's conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, along with a sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment and 20 stripes for committing Zina-bil-Jabr with a minor. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence from eye-witnesses and hostile witnesses, the legal effect of an alleged compromise between the parties regarding sentence reduction, and the treatment of improvements in witness statements. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly relied on the eye-witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, that the alleged compromise was not satisfactorily proved, and that the sentence awarded did not merit interference. The Court laid down that concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed unless found defective, and an unproved compromise cannot serve as a ground for sentence reduction in heinous offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of a hostile witness must be entirely rejected or can be relied upon partially?
  • Does an unproved compromise between the parties serve as a valid ground for reduction of sentence in a Zina-bil-Jabr case?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Begum Versus Ghulam Rasul1984 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• Zafar Lqbal Versus State1984 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-15
  jurisdiction of Court of Sessionappellate jurisdictionFederal Shariat CourtHudood Ordinancecriminal trialleave to appealSection 354 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, convicted under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by an Additional Sessions Judge, sought leave to appeal against the Federal Shariat Court's dismissal of their appeal. The core legal questions were whether an Additional Sessions Judge possessed the jurisdiction to convict an accused under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, an offence triable by a Magistrate 1st Class, and whether the Federal Shariat Court had the competence to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge acted within jurisdiction, as section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers the Court of Session to try any offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Federal Shariat Court correctly exercised appellate jurisdiction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The principle laid down is that the Court of Session holds concurrent jurisdiction to try offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and appeals arising from such trials under the Hudood Ordinance lie exclusively to the Federal Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to convict an accused for an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 that is otherwise triable by a Magistrate 1st Class?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the competence to hear an appeal against a conviction recorded by an Additional Sessions Judge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower the Court of Session to try offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Versus State1984 SCMR 1567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  culpable homicidecommon intentionbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a High Court judgment upholding the convictions of the appellants for murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased and the complainant using brickbats and a Sota (stick) following a prior dispute. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's ocular account regarding the specific injuries attributed to the accused, particularly the brickbat injuries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a common intention to kill or that the injuries were inflicted with the intent to cause death. Instead, the Court determined that the accused acted with the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death, but without the specific intent to murder. Consequently, the Court acquitted one appellant due to insufficient evidence and altered the conviction of the other from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing that the nature of the injuries and the circumstances did not warrant a murder conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version of the incident?
  • Does the mere presence of a motive suffice to establish an intention to kill under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When should a conviction for murder be altered to one under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish their specific role in the commission of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Abdul Aziz1984 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain Versus Muhammad Anwar1984 SCMR 1506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Versus Muhammad Akhtar1984 SCMR 1482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  AcquittalOcular testimonyCriminal appealMurderEvidence appraisalMedical evidenceFIR credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a murder case involving the deaths of two individuals and injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony and prosecution evidence were sufficient to sustain convictions despite significant discrepancies. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court’s decision to uphold the acquittals. The Court held that the prosecution’s ocular account was highly unreliable, noting that the FIR appeared to have been lodged after deliberation rather than at the reported time. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the victims' stomach contents contradicted the prosecution's timeline of the incident, and the prosecution failed to establish the connection between the recovered weapons and the crime. The Court laid down the principle that the mere fact that an incident occurred in daylight does not validate a prosecution case if the evidence regarding the presence of witnesses, the timing of the event, and the specific roles of the accused is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the medical findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony is found to be unreliable and contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does the mere occurrence of an incident in daylight establish the guilt of the accused if the prosecution's version of events is otherwise improbable?
  • Is the timing of an FIR relevant to the credibility of the prosecution's case when evidence suggests it was lodged after deliberation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muh Mmad Rafiq Versus Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1984 SCMR 1471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-11
  evacuee propertyauction purchasertransfer of propertysettlement authoritiescompromise decreeDisplaced Persons Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property in Lahore, initially auctioned to Respondent No.4, whose bid was later cancelled for non-payment of the full price. The property was subsequently auctioned to the appellant, who obtained a Permanent Transfer Document (P.T.D.) and took possession. The High Court, in a writ petition, set aside the Settlement authorities' decision, ruling that under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the original auction-purchaser was entitled to a three-year period to pay the transfer price. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise to resolve the competing claims. The Supreme Court accepted this settlement, finding it a fair and just solution. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous orders of both the Settlement authorities and the High Court. The Court directed the Settlement authorities to partition the property and issue fresh transfer documents, granting one shop to each party, thereby effectively dividing the disputed asset between the two auction-purchasers to settle the litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court accept a compromise between parties to resolve a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property?
  • Does the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 allow an auction-purchaser a three-year period to pay the transfer price?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Versus State1984 SCMR 1426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain Versus State1984 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain Versus State1984 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Versus State1984 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-23
  bail cancellationjudicial proprietyforum shoppingsuccessive bail applicationsjudicial conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that cancelled the petitioner's bail in a murder case. The petitioner had previously filed three bail applications; the first two were rejected by an Additional Sessions Judge. The third application, filed shortly after the second without fresh grounds, was heard and granted by a different judge (the Sessions Judge) rather than the judge who had rejected the prior applications. The High Court cancelled this bail, citing judicial impropriety in bypassing the judge who had previously seized the matter and noting the lack of fresh grounds. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that it is highly improper for a subsequent bail application to be heard by a different judge when the original judge is available, particularly without fresh grounds. The Court emphasized that such practices undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to bring the matter to the Chief Justice's attention.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally proper for a subsequent bail application to be heard by a different judge when the judge who rejected the previous applications is still available?
  • Can a bail application be entertained and granted when it contains no fresh grounds and follows multiple rejections by a court of equal jurisdiction?
  • Does the granting of bail by a different judge, after prior rejections by another judge, constitute a ground for the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihsanullah Versus State1984 SCMR 1323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →