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. 232594 judgments in total.

• 1988 PLC(CS) 8281988 PLC(CS) 828 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1988-03-05Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLC(CS) 8241988 PLC(CS) 824 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1988-01-06Read full judgment →
• ABDUS SAMAD TEHSILDAR Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1988 PLC(CS) 820 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLC(CS) 7951988 PLC(CS) 795 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-10-21Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLC(CS) 7881988 PLC(CS) 788 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-09-19Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RETIRED), MUZAFFARABAD Versus AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1988 PLC(CS) 698 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mirza MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD1988 PLC(CS) 672 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-08-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFT JAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1988 PLC(CS) 629 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-08-15Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ ABBASI Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1988 PLC(CS) 624 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLC(CS) 401988 PLC(CS) 40 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
• Ch. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1986 PLC(CS) 380 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1985-09-23Read full judgment →
• Khawaja ABDUL KHALIQ Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary1986 PLC(CS) 343 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1985-11-21Read full judgment →
• Khawaja GHULAM ABBAS DAR Versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR1986 PLC(CS) 1052 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
• GLITILAM ABMAD ABBASI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1984 PLC(CS) 520 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• ALI AFSAR KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1984 PLC(CS) 500 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• LLTIKNAR HUSSAIN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF A J & K1984 PLC(CS) 465 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• EHSAN-UL-HAQ Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1984 PLC(CS) 319 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• AMIRULLAH KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1984 PLC(CS) 1653 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1984-07-20Read full judgment →
• 1984 PLC(CS) 16291984 PLC(CS) 1629 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
• A. R. SALEEM Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1984 PLC(CS) 115 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1983-08-18Read full judgment →
• S. AOLAD ALI GILLANI Versus GOVERNMENT OE AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC(CS) 659 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-08-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GULZAR HIJAZI Versus AZAD GOVT. OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC(CS) 586 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-10-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAWAJA Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1980 PLC(CS) 564 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-05-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ ABBASI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT CAF STATE OF J & K1980 PLC(CS) 526 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-05-24Read full judgment →
• TASSADAQ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC(CS) 52 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
• Syed AFTAB HUSSAIN SHAH Versus REVJINUE COMMISSIONER, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1980 PLC(CS) 512 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
• MISS TAHIRA TALAT Versus AZAD J & K GOVERNMENT1980 PLC(CS) 486 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RASHID KHAN Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MIRPUR1980 PLC(CS) 466 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-11-26Read full judgment →
• Miss TAHIRA TALAT Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC(CS) 443 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-03-07Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR AHMED Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT' OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC(CS) 385 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-04-18Read full judgment →
• Kh. SADDAR-UD-DIN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF A J & K1980 PLC(CS) 220 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• SAEEDA JAHAN ARA Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC(CS) 194 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-11-22Read full judgment →
• RAFIQUE AKHTAR CHAUDHRY Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC(CS) 134 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-11-22Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL AHMED Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1980 PLC(CS) 112 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-01-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Versus AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1980 PLC(CS) 108 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
• Kh. Abdus Samad, Member S. M. ZAFAR Versus AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND ANOIHER1979 PLC(CS) 85 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-03-31Read full judgment →
• GHULAM QADIR KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1979 PLC(CS) 78 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ch. ALIF DIN Versus ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AZAD GOVERNMENT1979 PLC(CS) 7 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K AND ANOTHER1979 PLC(CS) 56 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1979 PLC(CS) 25 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
• SABIR HUSSAIN KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ANOTHER1979 PLC(CS) 14 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-12-13Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMED KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1979 PLC(CS) 111 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED KADRI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1979 PLC(CS) 100 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mir SADARUDDIN Versus AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1978 PLC(CS) 92 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-06-06Read full judgment →
• ABDUR RASHID Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE1978 PLC(CS) 49 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
• Munshi MIR ZAMAN KHAN Versus COLLECTOR, POONCH1978 PLC(CS) 129 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
• JAVED AKHTAR Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD J & K STATE1978 PLC(CS) 126 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
• S. M. ZAFAR Versus AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1978 PLC(CS) 122 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAYYAB KHAN Versus AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1978 PLC(CS) 112 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-04-25Read full judgment →
• Kh. AHMED DIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF AZAD J & K AND ANOTHER1977 PLC(CS) 86 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• GHULAM AHMED Versus D. I: G. POLICE, AZAD JAMM.U & KASHMIR AND ANOTHER1977 PLC(CS) 65 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER Versus Kh. AHMAD DIN1977 PLC(CS) 60 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-01-30Read full judgment →
• GHULAM AHMED Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD J & K,1977 PLC(CS) 56 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJID Versus GOVERNMENT OF AZAD J & K THROUGH CHIEF1977 PLC(CS) 152 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-01-26Read full judgment →
• Kh. AHMAD DIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF AZAD J & K AND ANOTHER1977 PLC(CS) 149 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJEED, FOREST GUARD, TEHSIL BHIMBER, MIRPUR, AZAD KASHMIR Versus AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT THROUGH1977 PLC(CS) 127 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-01-26Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD YOUSAF SHAH Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1977 PLC(CS) 105 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-04-06Read full judgment →
• PROJECT MANAGER, MANGLA DAM (WAPDA) Versus FAKHAR ZAMAN HAIDER AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLC(CS) 79 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1976-07-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIM KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU KASHMIR THROUGH I. G. POLICE, MUZAFPARABAD1976 PLC(CS) 134 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB PROVINCE Versus Malik GHULAM HUSSAIN, PROSECUTING INSPECTOR OF POLICE1978 PLC(CS) 134 · Appellate Tribunal, Punjab · 1976-10-29Read full judgment →
• 1977 PLC(CS) 441977 PLC(CS) 44 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1975-02-18Read full judgment →
• 1977 PLC(CS) 421977 PLC(CS) 42 · Administrative Tribunal PunjabRead full judgment →
• 1977 PLC(CS) 411977 PLC(CS) 41 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1974-11-08Read full judgment →
• 1977 PLC(CS) 2111977 PLC(CS) 211 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1974-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE1976 PLC(CS) 72 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1975-12-30Read full judgment →
• FAZAL ILAHI Versus Malik MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN1976 PLC(CS) 57 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1975-11-06Read full judgment →
• HAJI AHMAD AWAN Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE1976 PLC(CS) 56 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
• RASOOL BAKHSH Versus COLLECTOR, RAHIMYAR KHAN1976 PLC(CS) 38 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1975-02-18Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus MOHAMMAD AWAIS SHAHID1976 PLC(CS) 35 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1975-01-02Read full judgment →
• Sh. NASIRUDDIN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION & WORKS DEPARTMENT1976 PLC(CS) 33 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1974-09-25Read full judgment →
• GULZAR AHMAD Versus A. O. (B. O. R.), SETTLEMENT OFFICE1976 PLC(CS) 32 · Administrative Tribunal PunjabRead full judgment →
• M. HASSAN DIN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT1976 PLC(CS) 31 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1974-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUSHARRAF AHMAD Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT1976 PLC(CS) 29 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1974-11-19Read full judgment →
• RIAZUL HASNAIN Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE1976 PLC(CS) 28 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1975-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ch. MASOOD AHMAD Versus EXCISE & TAXATION DEPARTMENT1976 PLC(CS) 27 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1974-09-25Read full judgment →
• Hafiz MUHAMMAD ABDUL SATTAR Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION1976 PLC(CS) 26 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1974-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 961 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• GUL HASSAN Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-03
  criminal misconductreversal of acquittalcheatingpublic servantappellate reviewdocumentary evidencecorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the reversal of an acquittal by the High Court of West Pakistan. The appellant, an Assistant City Survey Officer, was charged under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for obtaining Rs. 6,000 from a citizen by falsely representing that a penalty had been imposed by the City Deputy Collector. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly reversed the trial court's acquittal by reassessing the evidence, specifically regarding the appellant's defense that the funds were a personal loan. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had misdirected itself by ignoring clear documentary evidence, including a receipt in the appellant's handwriting and bank records, which contradicted the 'loan' defense. The Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that an appellate court is justified in reversing an acquittal when the trial court's reasoning is based on irrational deductions and ignores the weight of evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate review of acquittals must focus on whether the trial court's conclusions are supported by the evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reverse an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is based on irrational deductions and ignores the weight of evidence?
  • Does the receipt of money by a public servant under a false pretense of a penalty constitute criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  • Is a defense claim of a loan credible when contradicted by documentary evidence and the official position of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAHMAN Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 932 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-29
  murderdeath sentenceeyewitness testimonyprompt F.I.R.criminal appealappraisement of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellants, Saddiq and Abdul Rahman, for the murder of Mst. Kamalan, which were confirmed by the High Court of West Pakistan. The Supreme Court granted special leave to re-examine the evidence. The core legal question centered on the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the promptness of the First Information Report, and the credibility of the prosecution evidence regarding a daylight murder motivated by annoyance over the deceased's remarriage. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a correct appraisement of evidence, noting that the presence of the key eye-witness in her own house was established and the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. excluded the possibility of substitution. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness present inside the house at the time of a daylight crime can be discredited by subsequent statements of another witness regarding her brief movement after the occurrence?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained primarily on the basis of ocular evidence supported by a prompt First Information Report and natural motive?
  • Does the absence of bloodstains on a weapon recovered from one co-accused undermine the integrity of a blood-stained weapon recovery from another co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-29Read full judgment →
• HAQDAD KHAN Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-30Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD Versus CROWN1970 PCRLJ 892 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• SARBLAND KHAN Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-26Read full judgment →
• LKRAMUL HAQ Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-05Read full judgment →
• MAJHI Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  murderself-defenceeye-witness testimonyadverse presumptionnon-production of witnesscriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Siddique, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Sharif, along with sentences under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution version of the incident was credible and whether the appellant's plea of self-defence should prevail. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was reliable, corroborated by medical evidence, the immediate arrest of the appellant at the spot, and the recovery of the blood-stained weapon, while the plea of self-defence lacked any supporting independent or circumstantial evidence. The Court laid down the principle that the non-production of a child of tender years as a witness does not give rise to an adverse presumption against the prosecution where such a witness is incapable of rendering assistance, and that the absence of injuries on an accused negates a plea of self-defence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an adverse presumption can be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a child of tender years as an eye-witness?
  • Does the absence of any injury on the person of the accused negate a plea of self-defence?
  • Whether an attack resulting in a severed femoral vein constitutes an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death under Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALIQ Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-20
  accomplice testimonyapprovercorroborationmurdercriminal appealdeath sentencerecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Abdul Mannan and illegal possession of arms. The appellant was sentenced to death, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence corroborating the testimony of the approver was sufficient in material particulars to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of an accomplice's statement on material points linking the accused to the crime, though not necessarily in every detail. In this case, the approver's testimony was corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained clothing and a knife at the appellant's instance, as well as medical evidence showing cut injuries on both the approver and the appellant. The Court affirmed that such evidence provided sufficient material corroboration. The principle laid down is that while the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice can legally form the basis of a conviction, judicial prudence necessitates corroboration on material particulars to ensure the safety of the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice legally form a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction?
  • What is the required standard for corroboration of an accomplice's testimony in a criminal trial?
  • Can the recovery of blood-stained articles at the instance of an accused serve as material corroboration of an approver's testimony?
  • Does medical evidence of injuries on an accused provide material corroboration for an accomplice's testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-11-12
  murderunlawful assemblycommon objecteyewitness testimonychild witnessblood-stained recoveriessentence mitigationdeath penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which dismissed the appellants' appeal and confirmed their death sentences for murder under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case was that six appellants attacked and beat the deceased Allah Dia to death following a motive of prior enmity. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony from family members, including a child witness, corroboration through the recovery of blood-stained weapons, and the proportionality of the death penalty among co-accused carrying different weapons. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the appellants based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative weapon recoveries were well-founded. However, regarding sentencing, the Court held that while the death sentences for the two appellants armed with dangerous weapons (Gandhali and iron-bar) were justified, the sentences for the remaining four appellants armed with lesser weapons (dangs and wooden thapis) should be reduced to transportation for life. The appeal was partly accepted with this modification of sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of close relatives and a child witness can form the sole basis for a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of blood-stained weapons immediately after arrest furnish sufficient corroboration of eyewitness accounts in a criminal trial?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in the medical evidence regarding the digestion of food outweigh direct and credible eyewitness testimony as to the time of occurrence?
  • Are differential sentences justified among co-accused convicted under section 302 read with section 149 based on the nature of the weapons wielded by each offender?
  Read full judgment →
• SARJEET Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-05Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMED Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-07-10
  arrest without warrantcognizable offencepolice powerswrongful custodymurder convictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a police constable. The petitioner did not dispute the occurrence of the incident but contended that the deceased constable lacked a warrant for his arrest, thereby granting the petitioner a legal right to resist what he claimed was wrongful custody. The core legal question was whether the police officer’s attempt to arrest the petitioner without a warrant was lawful under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding the interplay between Sections 54 and 56. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was lawful, as the officer acted within his authority under Section 54, which permits arrests without a warrant for persons concerned in cognizable offences or against whom credible information exists. The Court clarified that Section 56, which governs arrests by subordinates pursuant to a written order, does not control or limit the independent power of arrest granted under Section 54. Consequently, the petitioner’s claim of wrongful custody was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 control or limit the power of arrest granted under Section 54?
  • Under what circumstances may a police officer arrest a person without a warrant under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of a specific arrest warrant render a police officer's attempt to arrest a person for a cognizable offence 'wrongful custody'?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN Versus SULTANA1970 PCRLJ 1303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-15Read full judgment →
• KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1970 PCRLJ 1231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
• SAINDAD Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-16
  murdersentence reductionmitigating circumstancesdeath penaltytransportation for lifesudden provocationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to death, a conviction and sentence subsequently upheld by the High Court. The appellant sought special leave to appeal, primarily challenging the appropriateness of the death sentence given the circumstances of the incident. The evidence established that the appellant, while quarreling and grappling with the deceased, suddenly produced a knife and inflicted fatal injuries. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding self-defence and the possibility that the death resulted from surgical error, finding no evidence to support these claims. However, the Court determined that the circumstances of the altercation—specifically that the appellant was engaged in a sudden, heated exchange and was being pushed away by the deceased and his brother—constituted mitigating factors. While the provocation was insufficient to invoke the exceptions under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to reduce the offence, the Court held that the death penalty was not warranted. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to transportation for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden altercation and exchange of abuses constitute sufficient provocation to reduce a murder charge under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a death sentence be reduced to transportation for life when mitigating circumstances exist despite the conviction for murder being upheld?
  • Is the plea of self-defence available to an accused who was not threatened with death or grievous hurt by the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• SAJJAD HUSSAIN Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-03Read full judgment →
• FAZAL Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-07Read full judgment →
• DAULAT HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL KHALIQ1970 PCRLJ 1049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-26
  leave to appealmurderalibimedical evidenceeye-witness testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, which had set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, motivated by family honor, traveled from Karachi to Jhelum and shot the deceased. The High Court acquitted the respondent by rejecting the eye-witness testimony and accepting his plea of alibi. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in dismissing the petition, observed that the eye-witness accounts contradicted the medical evidence regarding the direction of the gunshot injuries. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to explain how the respondent could have learned of the deceased's sudden arrival in the village to travel from Karachi in time. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in accepting the respondent's alibi, which was supported by official railway employment records showing his presence on duty in Karachi at the time of the occurrence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in rejecting eye-witness testimony when it directly contradicts the medical evidence regarding the nature and location of the injuries?
  • Can a plea of alibi be accepted if supported by official employment records that the prosecution fails to prove are forged?
  • Is leave to appeal against an acquittal warranted where the High Court's appraisal of the evidence is reasonable and supported by the record?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSUF1970 PCRLJ 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-09Read full judgment →
• SARDAR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-13Read full judgment →