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.

• ALI BUX Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 126 · Sindh High Court · 2003-05-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlspeedy trialprolonged incarcerationheroin possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused person who has remained incarcerated for five years pending trial on charges of possessing 250 grams of heroin. The core legal question addressed by the Court is whether the continued detention of an accused is justified when the trial has failed to progress significantly and the accused has already served a substantial portion of the maximum potential sentence. The Court held that given the inordinate delay in the trial proceedings, where no evidence has been recorded to date, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental consideration in bail matters, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration, especially when it approaches the duration of the maximum possible sentence for the alleged offense, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, regardless of the nature of the narcotics charge.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the trial has not progressed for five years?
  • Does the length of pre-trial detention relative to the maximum potential sentence justify the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be granted in narcotics cases when the prosecution has failed to record evidence after a significant period of incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• IRSHAD Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1246 · Sindh High Court · 2004-01-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirySection 161 Cr.P.C.delay in recording statementsmaterial inconsistencymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Irshad, who was charged with murder and rioting under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the material inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, specifically the significant delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and conflicting evidence regarding the place of occurrence. The Court held that the two-month delay in recording witness statements, coupled with the Investigating Officer's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation and the presence of contradictory evidence regarding the crime scene, created a case of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that for the purpose of bail, the material collected during investigation must be scrutinized, and unexplained delays in recording statements of witnesses named in the F.I.R. are of material significance. The principle established is that where the prosecution's evidence is weakened by significant procedural delays and material inconsistencies, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage should be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constitute grounds for granting bail?
  • Can material inconsistencies regarding the place of occurrence in the police investigation justify the grant of bail to an accused charged with murder?
  • Is the concession of the State Counsel regarding the grant of bail a relevant factor for the Court to consider?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir FAIZ MUHAMMAD TALPUR Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1222 · Sindh High Court · 2003-11-03
  post-arrest bailforgeryprohibitory clauseprima facie casecriminal misappropriationbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Mir Faiz Muhammad Talpur, who is facing trial for offenses under sections 420, 469, 272, 473, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his arrest for allegedly presenting a forged and fabricated voucher to the Sub-Treasury Officer. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail, specifically considering whether the alleged offenses fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the bail plea should be rejected. The ratio of the decision rests on the finding that sufficient prima facie material existed, including the recovery of the forged voucher, forged stamps, and other incriminating materials from the accused's possession, linking him to the commission of the alleged crimes. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting an accused to an offense that falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court is justified in refusing the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of forged documents and materials for their creation constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail?
  • Are offenses under sections 420, 469, 272, 473, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• NIAZ Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1192 · Sindh High Court · 2004-01-20
  post-arrest bailattempted robberypolice encounterprohibitory clausevehicle snatchingbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application arising from an FIR registered under section 17(1) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, sections 353, 324, 337-H(ii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, wherein the applicant sought post-arrest bail for his alleged involvement in an attempted motorcycle snatching and subsequent police encounter. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when apprehended on the spot during an armed encounter, despite the argument that the primary offence fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the mere fact that an offence may technically fall outside the prohibitory clause is insufficient for the grant of bail where the accused was apprehended at the scene following an exchange of gunfire with the police and supporting physical evidence was recovered. The court laid down the principle that rising trends in robbery and vehicle snatching, coupled with direct involvement in a police encounter, warrant the refusal of bail regardless of the prohibitory clause applicability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused in an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused is involved in a police encounter?
  • Does an arrest on the spot during an attempted robbery and subsequent armed confrontation disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR KHAN Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 114 · Sindh High Court · 2003-08-18
  post-arrest bailmedical grounds for bailserious illnesscustodial healthspecialized medical treatmentbail on medical grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused facing trial for offences under sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant, previously denied bail on merits, sought relief on medical grounds, citing severe health conditions including diabetes, hypertension, posterior myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and spinal cord injury with associated neurological deficits. The medical report from the Chief Medical Officer of Central Prison, Karachi, confirmed the applicant's critical condition and the unavailability of necessary specialized treatment, particularly physiotherapy, within the prison facility. While the complainant requested the constitution of a medical board, the State conceded to the bail plea. The Court, observing the applicant's prolonged custody and the documented necessity for specialized medical care unavailable in jail, held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The Court granted the application, emphasizing that the applicant's serious medical condition and the lack of adequate treatment facilities in custody justified the release on bail, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail on medical grounds if the prison facility lacks the specialized treatment required for their condition?
  • Does the unavailability of physiotherapy in a jail hospital constitute a valid ground for granting bail to an ailing prisoner?
  • Can a court grant bail on medical grounds even if previous bail applications on merits were dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SABIRA KHATOON Versus MUHAMMAD SHAHID alias GUDDU BIHARI and another2004 PCRLJ 1057 · Sindh High Court
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailmurderbelated statementalibicriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the complainant, Mst. Sabira Khatoon, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, Shahid Alam alias Guddu Behari, in a murder case arising from an incident where the deceased was assaulted and fatally injured over a dispute concerning alleged unauthorized construction and extortion. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent was rightly confirmed by the trial court given his subsequent implication by witnesses under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and allegations of misuse of bail. The Sindh High Court held that the order of the trial court confirming bail did not call for any interference, noting that the respondent's name did not figure in the initial police report or Roznamcha entry, statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not against him, and the trial court had duly considered the belated nature of the statements implicating him alongside an alibi certificate issued by town members. The application for bail cancellation was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail granted by a trial court should be cancelled when the accused was not named in the initial police report or Roznamcha entry?
  • Does a belated statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide sufficient grounds for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the High Court will interfere with an order confirming pre-arrest bail when the trial court has considered the material aspects of the case including an alibi certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• FAROOQ SUMAR and others Versus THE STATE and others2004 PCRLJ 1023 · Sindh High Court
  quashment of proceedingscancellation reportpowers of magistratepolice reportinvestigation materialillegal detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a miscellaneous application for the quashment of criminal proceedings and orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate in connection with an FIR registered under sections 342, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Investigating Officer submitted a cancellation report stating the allegations were false. Instead of evaluating the police report and material collected during the investigation, the Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant and witnesses on oath and took cognizance, ordering the trial of the accused. The core legal question was whether a Judicial Magistrate, upon receiving a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 recommending cancellation, can conduct an independent inquiry or record statements of witnesses instead of relying on the investigation material. The Sindh High Court held that the Magistrate acted without lawful authority by recording statements and assuming the role of an investigator, as the Magistrate must examine the existing material collected during investigation. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed that a fresh order be passed by a different Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Judicial Magistrate record statements of witnesses on oath when dealing with a police cancellation report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an order passed by a Magistrate on a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is administrative in nature?
  • Is a Magistrate empowered to act as an investigating officer while considering a report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• JAVED IQBAL Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 102 · Sindh High Court · 2003-05-30
  post-arrest bailcustoms actsmugglingexplosive materialwhite-collar crimemis-declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant, Javed Iqbal, who is facing trial under the Customs Act, 1969, for allegedly smuggling explosive material disguised as plastic toy rings, which subsequently exploded and caused eighteen fatalities. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant, alleged to be connected with the supplier firm that shipped the consignment, makes out a case for further inquiry to warrant the grant of bail. The court held that the material on record prima facie connects the applicant with the supplier establishment and the importation of the consignment, and given the nature of white-collar crimes involving smuggling of explosives, the applicant does not deserve the concession of bail. The bail application was accordingly dismissed, establishing that prima facie connection to a clandestine shipment of dangerous materials precludes post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused linked prima facie to the supply and importation of smuggled explosive materials is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the standard of evidence expected in planned white-collar crimes differ from ordinary criminal cases when considering bail?
  • Whether a case of mis-declaration and smuggling resulting in mass fatalities warrants further inquiry under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA-UR-REHMAN Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 923 · Sindh High Court · 2002-10-30
  police encountermedical evidenceocular testimonybenefit of the doubtillegal armscriminal appealcontradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 13-D of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecution's story regarding a police encounter, the serious discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, and the improbability of firing a weapon while driving a motorcycle at high speed. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the police encounter beyond reasonable doubt due to conflicting timelines, medical evidence contradicting the distance of firing, and the absence of corroborative injuries indicative of a fall from a moving motorcycle. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, granting the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence, and the prosecution's narrative suffers from inherent improbabilities, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained when material contradictions exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing?
  • Is it probable for a person riding a motorcycle at high speed to simultaneously control the accelerator and fire a pistol?
  • Does the unexplained delay between an alleged police encounter and the production of injured accused before a medical officer create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the core incident of a police encounter on incidental recoveries of weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 902 · Sindh High Court · 2003-03-03
  free fightright of self-defensecommon intentioncriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidencehatchet injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of two brothers, Sher Muhammad and Jan Muhammad, for the murder of one individual and causing injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the appellants acted in self-defense, given that the accused also sustained injuries during the altercation, or if the incident constituted a 'free fight' where each participant is responsible for their individual acts. The court held that because both parties were armed, anticipated the conflict, and engaged in a mutual encounter, the incident was a free fight. Consequently, the court rejected the plea of self-defense, ruling that in such encounters, the right of private defense is unavailable, and each participant is liable for their specific actions. The court upheld the conviction of Sher Muhammad for murder, as he inflicted the fatal blow, while acquitting him of the charges related to the injuries of the prosecution witnesses. Conversely, it upheld the conviction of Jan Muhammad for causing injuries but acquitted him of the murder charge, as he did not inflict the fatal wound.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of self-defense apply in a case of a 'free fight' where both parties are armed and prepared for conflict?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding self-defense if the evidence suggests the possibility of such a plea, even if not specifically raised?
  • In a case of a free fight, is each participant responsible for their own individual acts?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM NABI Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 830 · Sindh High Court · 2002-10-17
  post-arrest baildelayed F.I.R.identification paradedoubtful recoveryfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the accused Ghulam Nabi seeking post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 78 of 2002 registered at Police Station Shah Latif Town, Karachi, for an offense involving robbery of buffaloes. The core legal question revolves around whether the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., doubtful recovery circumstances, and absence of an identification parade render the case one of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The court held that due to the unexplained sixteen-hour delay in reporting, the implausible roadside recovery of the alleged stolen animals, an underlying ownership dispute, and the lack of an identification test for unknown accused, the matter constituted a case of further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, granting the applicant post-arrest bail subject to furnishing a solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that suspicious circumstances regarding delayed reporting, doubtful recoveries, and failure to hold an identification parade for stranger-accused justify the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of several hours in lodging an F.I.R. make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether the recovery of alleged stolen property from an open roadside casts doubt on the prosecution case sufficient to warrant bail?
  • Is the absence of an identification test for unknown accused persons a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR AHMED Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 785 · Sindh High Court · 2002-12-17
  Pre-arrest bailBail applicationRobberyHudood OrdinanceDelay in FIRFalse implicationMala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This application sought pre-arrest bail under Sections 497/498, Cr.P.C., for the applicant charged under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 337-F(i) for an incident involving robbery and injuries. The applicant contended false implication due to tribal enmity, a 14-hour delay in the FIR, and unreliable identification. The State argued that the FIR delay was explained, medical evidence confirmed injuries, and there was no proof of mala fide. The Court, after considering arguments and record, found the delay in FIR reasonably explained and the complainant's injuries supported by evidence. It noted the applicant was a nominated accused with a specific role and found no record of previous enmity to substantiate claims of mala fide. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, recalling the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the applicant was not entitled to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where the delay in lodging the FIR is reasonably explained?
  • Does the presence of specific role attribution in the FIR weigh against granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an unsubstantiated claim of tribal enmity or mala fide sufficient ground for pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be refused when medical evidence supports the prosecution's account of injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHZAD ABID Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 661 · Sindh High Court · 2002-05-09
  statutory delaybail applicationretrospective operationprocedural lawCode of Criminal ProcedureembezzlementOrdinance LIV of 2001
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the trial of an accused charged with embezzlement under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The applicant sought bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance LIV of 2001), which omitted the third and fourth provisos to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—provisions previously permitting bail due to trial delay—applied retrospectively to pending cases. The Court held that the Ordinance operates prospectively and does not affect cases pending at the time of its promulgation. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of the bail plea based on the omission of these provisos was legally misconceived. The Court affirmed the principle that procedural amendments altering rights do not apply retrospectively unless expressly stated. As the applicant had been in custody since August 2000 and the delay in trial was not attributable to him, he was entitled to the concession of bail under the law existing at the time of his arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 apply retrospectively to pending bail applications?
  • Can an accused be denied bail on the ground of statutory delay if the relevant provisions were omitted by an Ordinance during the pendency of the trial?
  • Does the omission of the third and fourth provisos to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 affect the rights of an accused whose trial was already pending?
  Read full judgment →
• ASIF ALI Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 540 · Sindh High Court · 2002-09-26
  bail applicationnarcoticscharasbhangspy informationindependent witnessesfoisting of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by the applicant in connection with a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, read with Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, arising from the alleged recovery of 1 kilogram of Charas from his personal search and 5 kilograms of Bhang from the vehicle in which he was travelling. The applicant denied the allegations, alleging that the narcotics were foisted by the police, noting that the raiding party comprised subordinates of the complainant, and pointing out that no independent private witnesses were associated despite prior spy information. Following precedent in similar cases with identical facts where bail was allowed, the High Court of Sindh granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 100,000 and executing a personal recognizance bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail in a narcotics case where prior spy information was received but no independent private witnesses were associated with the recovery?
  • Whether the recovery of contraband exclusively witnessed by police subordinates of the complainant warrants the grant of bail on grounds of identical precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM NABI Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 454 · Sindh High Court · 2002-05-21
  false implicationsubstitution of accusedpolice high-handednessbenefit of doubtanti-terrorism trialzina enforcementcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 6 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the appellant was rightly convicted despite being substituted for the actual accused named in the F.I.R. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant was falsely implicated through police high-handedness and collusion with a local influential person, as a completely different individual with a different parentage and caste was nominated in the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation or evidence supporting substitution. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, laying down the principle that substituting an accused without legal justification or evidence of a genuine mistake violates fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and leaves the prosecution case riddled with fatal doubts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained when a completely different person with a different caste and parentage was specifically nominated in the initial F.I.R. without valid explanation for substitution?
  • Does the substitution of an accused person without supporting evidence during trial create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case warranting acquittal?
  • What is the legal duty of a trial court when dealing with an unrepresented and illiterate accused facing serious criminal charges?
  Read full judgment →
• NIGERIAN NATIONAL Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 440 · Sindh High Court · 2002-01-24
  jail appealplea of guiltynarcotics smugglingreduction of sentenceheroins capsuleslegality of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal arises from a criminal matter where the appellant, a foreign national, was apprehended at the airport carrying heroin capsules in his belly and subsequently convicted upon a plea of guilty by the trial court under narcotics control laws, receiving a sentence of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question concerns the maintainability and extent of an appeal against a conviction based on a plea of guilty under the relevant procedural law, specifically whether challenge is restricted to the legality of the sentence. The court held that under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an appeal following a plea of guilty is maintainable only to the extent of the legality of the sentence. The key principle laid down is that where an accused pleads guilty and is convicted, appellate interference is unwarranted when the sentence imposed falls within the statutory limits and no legal flaw is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • To what extent is an appeal maintainable when a conviction is based on a plea of guilty?
  • Whether the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment for smuggling 956 grams of heroin is proper?
  • Does Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit challenging the conviction on merits after pleading guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• NAUSHABA KAZI, XII CIVIL JUDGE, KARACHI (SOUTH) Versus MEHJABEEN FARZANA, ADVOCATE2003 PCRLJ 277 · Sindh High Court · 1999-10-21
  contempt of courtadvocate misconductrevival of temporary statutesjurisdiction of high courtjudge chambers entrybar to taking cognizancecontempt of court act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from contempt proceedings initiated against an advocate charged with entering the chambers of a Family Judge without permission, misbehaving, abusing her, and disrupting her judicial work. The core legal questions involved whether the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 stood automatically revived upon the lapse of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 1998, whether the High Court's jurisdiction was barred under section 6 of the 1976 Act due to concurrent offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, and whether entering a judge's chambers without permission constitutes contempt. The court held that the 1976 Act automatically revived upon the expiration of the temporary 1998 Ordinance, that the bar in section 6 does not apply unless the penal offense specifically constitutes contempt of court, and that a judge's chambers are private premises distinct from the open court-room, prohibiting unauthorized entry. The key principle laid down is that entering a judge's chambers without prior permission is an interference with the administration of justice and amounts to contempt of court, and that temporary repealing statutes allow prior permanent legislation to revive upon efflux of time.

  Questions settled

  • Does a permanent statute automatically revive upon the expiration and lapse of a temporary repealing Ordinance?
  • Does section 6 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 bar the High Court from taking cognizance of a contempt charge when the act may also constitute an offense under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether entering a judge's private chambers without prior permission constitutes a contempt of court?
  • Does section 16 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Ordinance, 1964 exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings for an incident occurring in a Family Judge's chambers?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 1925 · Sindh High Court · 2002-09-23
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyidentification paradeprohibitory clauseexpeditious trialbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a criminal case pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, involving charges of robbery at a textile mill. The applicant, Muhammad Akram, sought post-arrest bail, contending that prosecution witnesses were not appearing for trial and that co-accused had already been granted bail, thus invoking the rule of consistency. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite a previous dismissal of his bail application by the High Court and the existence of identification evidence. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the previous dismissal order by the High Court had not been challenged, and that sufficient evidence existed regarding his complicity, including identification by prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the applicant's case from that of the co-accused, finding the rule of consistency inapplicable because the co-accused lacked identification evidence. The principle laid down is that the rule of consistency in bail matters does not apply where the evidentiary basis for the co-accused differs significantly from that of the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where the evidentiary standing of the accused differs from that of co-accused who were granted bail?
  • Can a bail application be granted when a previous bail application for the same offense was dismissed by the High Court and not challenged?
  • What measures can a trial court take to procure the attendance of prosecution witnesses who fail to appear?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 1847 · Sindh High Court · 2003-01-31
  qatl-i-amdqisasta'zirtazkiya-tush-shahoodbenefit of doubtconfirmation of death sentenceocular testimonyrecovery of crime weaponmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of conviction and death sentence passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions involved the legality of awarding death by qisas without fulfilling the mandatory requirement of tazkiya-tush-shahood, the nature of ocular and circumstantial evidence (including motive and weapon recovery) required to sustain a conviction, and the mandatory statutory duty of a Sessions Judge to submit proceedings under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for confirmation of a death sentence. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of tazkiya-tush-shahood, the death sentence by qisas cannot be sustained, but conviction and sentence may be altered to ta'zir under section 302(b). Furthermore, where the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions, doubtful ocular accounts from interested witnesses without independent corroboration, and unproved motive and weapon recovery, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. The court laid down that confirmation proceedings are an independent statutory duty separate from an appeal, and that the rule of benefit of doubt is a fundamental rule of prudence in criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of death by qisas be inflicted without subjecting the prosecution witnesses to the test of tazkiya-tush-shahood?
  • Whether a conviction under section 302(a) can be altered to section 302(b) as ta'zir when the formal requirements of qisas are not met?
  • Is a reference for the confirmation of a death sentence under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an independent proceeding distinct from a criminal appeal?
  • Whether the failure of a trial court to observe the exact wording of section 368 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders a death sentence illegal beyond correction by the appellate court?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of interested eye-witnesses when material aspects of the prosecution story are doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAHYAR Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 943 · Sindh High Court · 2002-01-11
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionovert actrule of consistencymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Allahyar seeking post-arrest bail in Sessions Case No.103 of 2001 arising out of F.I.R. No.80 of 2001 registered under sections 302, 324, 504, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Dadu. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where no overt act is attributed to him and a co-accused on identical evidence has already been granted bail, coupled with the State's concession. The Sindh High Court held that considering the admitted absence of any overt act, the existence of prior enmity, the grant of bail to a similarly placed co-accused, and the State's non-objection, the applicant is entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing identical allegations are granted bail, and the absence of an overt act coupled with further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no overt act is attributed and he is alleged to be present empty-handed?
  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused on identical evidence entitle another accused to bail under the rule of consistency?
  • Whether bail should be granted when the State concedes to the application in circumstances calling for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• NAWAB Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 915 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-06
  murderocular testimonyinterested witnessesmedical evidencecapital punishmentcriminal appealreasonable doubtcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants for the murders of two individuals. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular testimony of interested witnesses, circumstantial evidence, and alleged motive. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case, as the ocular evidence was provided by partisan, related witnesses without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court identified significant contradictions between the medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the number of injuries and assailants. The court also noted that the unexplained delay in recording witness statements, the failure to prove the alleged motive, and the lack of ballistic reports connecting recovered weapons to the crime rendered the prosecution's narrative unreliable. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is provided by interested witnesses, it requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and unexplained contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, coupled with procedural failures, necessitate acquittal in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of related and interested witnesses require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant contradiction between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the number of injuries?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses by the police render their testimony unreliable?
  • Are recoveries of weapons considered inconsequential when no empty cartridges are recovered from the crime scene and no ballistic report is obtained?
  Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR Versus THE STATE Muhammad Ayaz Soomro , Ali Azher Tunio, Asstt. A. G.2002 PCRLJ 791 · Sindh High Court · 2001-10-18
  post-arrest bailocular evidencemedical evidenceinconsistencyfurther inquirymurdertentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Zulfiqar, who was charged under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the apparent inconsistencies between the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and the medical evidence presented in the post-mortem report. The court observed that while the complainant alleged the deceased sustained injuries to the chest, abdomen, and back from various firearms, the medical report indicated injuries to the neck, forearm, and shoulder, and noted the use of a gun rather than the specific weapons alleged. Relying on established precedents, the court held that such clear discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence necessitate further inquiry into the applicant's guilt. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant, ruling that his case fell within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution's version required further investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant inconsistency between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the location and nature of injuries entitle an accused to bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of bail?
  • Are observations made by a court during bail proceedings binding on the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 621 · Sindh High Court · 2001-04-23
  quashment of F.I.R.inherent jurisdictiondouble jeopardycustoms fraudpost-arrest bailcriminal trialabuse of process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under section 32 of the Customs Act 1969 and punishable under section 156(1) of the same Act, on the grounds of double jeopardy and civil liability. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A can be invoked as an alternative or additional remedy when an adequate alternate remedy exists before the trial court, and whether criminal proceedings containing serious allegations of tax fraud should be stifled at the investigative or pre-trial stage. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A is neither an alternative nor an additional jurisdiction, cannot be used to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure, and should not be invoked to stifle a prosecution where prima facie allegations of fraud and connivance with customs officials require trial. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings involving serious factual disputes and allegations of defraudment must be allowed to proceed through the ordinary trial forum, and an accused must exhaust available remedies before the trial court rather than seeking premature quashment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked as an alternative or additional remedy when the accused has not approached the trial court?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the initial stage when evidence has yet to be adduced by the prosecution?
  • Whether registration of a criminal case under the Customs Act 1969 alongside civil remedies amounts to double jeopardy under Article 13(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• NABI BUX Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 578 · Sindh High Court · 2001-08-31
  criminal appealmurder convictionillegal judgmentremand of casesentencingPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Moro, convicting the appellant Nabi Bux under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a judgment of conviction under Section 302 is sustainable in law when the trial court fails to specify the exact clause or subsection under which the accused has been convicted and sentenced. The High Court held that it is the bounden duty of the trial court to specify the relevant clause of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and assign reasons therefor, failure of which results in an illegal judgment causing a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal by consent of the parties, and remanded the case back to the trial court to re-write and announce the judgment in accordance with law within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to specify the relevant subsection of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in the judgment when awarding a conviction?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to mention the specific clause of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, render the judgment illegal?
  • Can an appellate court remand a criminal case back to the trial court for re-writing the judgment when the original judgment lacks specification of the penal clause?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 5 · Sindh High Court · 2001-08-28Read full judgment →
• ASHIQUE ALI Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 450 · Sindh High Court · 2001-09-13
  criminal appealunlicensed armsarms ordinancerecovery witness contradictionsballistic expert reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, handed down by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Larkana. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended by a police party in possession of an unlicenced S.M.G. rifle contained in a gunny bag. The core legal question in this appeal concerns the reliability and sufficiency of the prosecution evidence, specifically regarding material contradictions in witness testimony, failure to seal the recovered weapon, non-production of the station diary entry, and omission of ballistic verification. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the cumulative material defects in the prosecution's case—such as the unsealed weapon and contradictions concerning weapon numbers—vitiated the conviction. The court laid down the principle that failure to seal recovered arms at the spot, coupled with material contradictions among witnesses and lack of ballistic corroboration, creates serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the recovery, warranting the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to seal a recovered weapon at the spot cast serious doubt on the recovery?
  • Whether material contradictions between the testimony of the investigating officer and the mashir regarding the weapon number are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Is the non-production of the station diary entry considered a material defect in a criminal trial under the Arms Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM NABI Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 349 · Sindh High Court · 2001-11-08
  post-arrest bailidentification paradedelayed identification testcapital offencemurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for bail in a case involving charges of murder under F.I.R. No.225 of 1999 registered at Police Station Dadu. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value and reliability of a delayed identification parade conducted six months after a night-time incident, where no specific role was attributed to the accused. The court held that a delayed identification test, particularly following a night-time occurrence and conducted without attributing a specific role to the accused, must be viewed with maximum caution and is insufficient at the bail stage to conclusively link the accused to the crime. Consequently, the court confirmed the grant of post-arrest bail to the applicant, reaffirming the principle that weak identification evidence without corroboration entitles an accused to bail in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted more than six months after a night-time incident?
  • Does a delayed identification test without corroborative evidence provide sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a capital case?
  • How do courts view an identification test where the accused is picked out without any specific role being attributed to them?
  Read full judgment →
• JAVED ALI Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION GHOTIARI, DISTRICT SANGHAR2002 PCRLJ 303 · Sindh High Court · 2001-07-30
  habeas corpusillegal detentionwrongful confinementpolice misconductcourt commissionerbailSection 491 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging the illegal detention of two individuals by police officials. The core legal question was whether the detainees were being held in lawful custody or were victims of wrongful confinement by the police, as evidenced by the lack of official records and contradictory statements provided by police officers. The court appointed a commissioner who discovered the detainees in a private room adjacent to a police station, with no corresponding entries in the station diary. The court held that the police had engaged in a crude attempt to cover up illegal detention through manufactured records and contradictory narratives. Finding the detention unlawful and the police conduct highly irregular, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail to the detainees, notwithstanding the pending criminal cases against them, to rectify the abuse of process. The court further directed the relevant authorities to initiate legal action against the delinquent police officers involved in the illegal confinement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant bail in proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the detention is found to be illegal?
  • Does the absence of entries in a police station diary regarding the presence of detainees indicate wrongful confinement?
  • Can a court order legal action against police officers for illegal detention discovered during habeas corpus proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAHIR BHATTI Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 138 · Sindh High Court · 2001-08-09
  perjuryforgerysuccession certificatecriminal revisionjurisdictionsummary trialSection 476 CrPCSection 193 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an appellate judgment that upheld the applicant's conviction under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for filing a forged affidavit to obtain a Succession Certificate. The applicant contended that the District Judge, having identified the forgery, was legally mandated to try the offence themselves under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and lacked the jurisdiction to forward the case to a Judicial Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the referral of the case to a Judicial Magistrate under Section 476-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered the subsequent trial and conviction illegal. The Court dismissed the revision, holding that while a court where forgery is committed may try the offence itself, it retains the discretion under Section 476-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to forward the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that the procedure under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is not exclusive, and a referral to a Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial is legally valid and does not vitiate the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a District Judge forward a case of forgery committed in their court to a Judicial Magistrate for trial instead of trying it themselves?
  • Is a Judicial Magistrate of First Class competent to try an offence under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, when the case is forwarded to them under Section 476-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the filing of a forged affidavit in a succession certificate proceeding justify criminal prosecution under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the availability of civil remedies like revocation of the certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• DUR MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE2002 PCRLJ 1177 · Sindh High Court · 2001-10-02
  circumstantial evidenceburden of proofcriminal appealacquittalQatl-i-Amdappreciation of evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant for the murder of a minor child. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the testimony of a witness who claimed to have seen the appellant standing near the crime scene, and the medical evidence regarding the cause of death. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's theory of strangulation. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the witness testimony was unreliable, inconsistent, and involved improvements upon earlier statements. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution to provide positive evidence of guilt, and that the trial court erred by shifting the burden to the accused to explain his presence at the scene. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that circumstantial evidence must be cogent and conclusive to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the prosecution witnesses are found to be unreliable?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to explain their presence at a crime scene in a criminal trial?
  • Is a conviction valid when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's theory of the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJEED Versus STATE2001 PCRLJ 318 · Sindh High Court · 2000-10-24
  compounding of offencecompromiseDiyatQisascriminal procedurereligious differencecompoundable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for permission to compound an offence and accept a compromise reached between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased. The central legal question was whether a compromise in a criminal case is legally permissible when the accused is Muslim and the deceased and their legal heirs are non-Muslims. The State contended that such a compromise could not be recorded due to the difference in religion. The Court held that the compounding of offences is governed strictly by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which does not impose any restriction based on the religion of the parties involved. The Court determined that the only requirement for compounding is the compoundability of the offence itself, which was satisfied in this case under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court ruled that compounding is permissible between Muslims and non-Muslims, as well as between non-Muslims inter se, provided the statutory requirements are met. The compromise was accepted, and the appellant was ordered to be released.

  Questions settled

  • Is a compromise between a Muslim accused and non-Muslim legal heirs of a deceased legally permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose any religious restrictions on the parties entering into a compromise?
  • Can an offence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded by the legal heirs of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1691 · Sindh High Court · 2001-02-28
  post-arrest bailfirearm injury absenceprevious enmitycriminal trialbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from Special Case No.2 of 2000 pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (S.T.A.), Sukkur, wherein the applicant Ghulam Murtaza faced trial under sections 324, 337-H(ii), 148, 149 and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, following F.I.R. No.64 of 2000 registered at Police Station Dubber. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the absence of any injuries despite alleged direct firing, prior enmity, and the completion of the investigation. The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, noting that no witness sustained any scratch despite the alleged firing, the parties harbored previous enmity, and the accused was no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the bail was granted upon furnishing the requisite surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when no injuries are sustained by any witness despite allegations of direct firing?
  • Does the existence of prior enmity between the parties support the grant of bail in criminal cases?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the police investigation has been completed and the accused is no longer required for investigative purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• SULTAN Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1628 · Sindh High Court · 2001-02-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseunnamed accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under sections 302, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the rule of further inquiry when his name was absent from the initial FIR, no eyewitnesses implicated him, and the only evidence connecting him was a belated recovery and vague statements by witnesses. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was guilty of an offense falling within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not named in the FIR, lacks direct eyewitness attribution, and the primary incriminating material is subject to further scrutiny, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused whose name does not appear in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when further inquiry is warranted?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon during investigation constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• SAFDAR ALI Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1480 · Sindh High Court · 2001-02-15
  post-arrest bailattempt to murderdeterring public servantspot arrestfirearm injurybail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application arising out of a criminal case registered under sections 353 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to an incident where the applicant allegedly fired upon a police party and injured a person during the execution of a warrant. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to bail when named in a promptly lodged FIR with specific role attribution of firearm injuries and spot arrest. The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail, observing that the FIR was prompt, the offense occurred in broad daylight, the applicant was apprehended on the spot with the weapon, and no mala fide or enmity was shown. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact that an offense is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life does not automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail, particularly where direct, corroborative incriminating evidence and spot apprehension exist.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail solely because the charged offenses are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  • Does apprehension of the accused on the spot with a firearm disentitle them to bail in a case involving firearm injuries?
  • Whether prompt lodging of an FIR and specific role attribution defeat a bail application under sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• FARID Versus DHAULAR SHER2001 PCRLJ 1464 · Sindh High Court · 2001-04-03
  post-arrest bailsimple hurtcriminal trialidentification doubtno recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from a trial before the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, under sections 380, 459, 148, and 337-H(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to bail where the injury attributed to him is simple in nature, no recovery has been effected from him, and the complainant and witnesses filed affidavits expressing inability to identify the culprits due to the dark night. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, given the simple nature of the injury, the lack of recovery, and the identification doubts raised by the complainant and witnesses, with no objection from the State Counsel. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted when evidentiary weaknesses such as doubtful identification and simple injuries exist, alongside the absence of incriminating recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the injury attributed to him is simple in nature and no recovery has been made?
  • Does an affidavit by the complainant and witnesses expressing inability to identify the culprit due to a dark night provide grounds for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MITHAL Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1408 · Sindh High Court · 2000-12-21
  criminal appealocular evidenceinterested witnessmedical corroborationmurder convictioncommon intentionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in relying on ocular testimony that the defense alleged was interested, partisan, and lacked independent corroboration regarding the motive and the recovery of the weapon. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The court held that the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and other witnesses was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. The court established that the testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are related to the victim, provided their statements inspire confidence and align with medical findings. Furthermore, the court clarified that a conviction can be sustained based on credible ocular testimony even if the prosecution fails to prove the motive or if the evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon is discarded as inconclusive.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular testimony if the evidence regarding motive and weapon recovery is discarded?
  • Does the status of a witness as interested automatically render their testimony unreliable in a criminal trial?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate the ocular testimony of witnesses in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1300 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-01
  murderconfession to policeSection 342 statementadmissibility of evidencecriminal appealreasonable doubtprocedural illegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the admissibility of a statement made by an accused to a police officer and the legal consequences of failing to obtain the accused's signature on his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, acquitting the appellant on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that a statement made to a police officer is inadmissible as a confession and that the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of obtaining the accused's signature on his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes a fatal illegality that cannot be cured. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a conviction cannot be sustained where it relies on inadmissible evidence and ignores mandatory procedural safeguards designed to protect the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statement made by an accused person to a police officer admissible as a confession in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to obtain the accused's signature on a statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a curable irregularity?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt despite a potentially false defence plea?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1291 · Sindh High Court · 2001-02-20
  pre-arrest bailineffective firingFIR delaymala fidecivil disputecriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail for two applicants accused of offences under Sections 324, 337-H(ii), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants met the criteria for pre-arrest bail, considering the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), the nature of the allegations involving ineffective firing, and the existence of a pre-existing civil property dispute between the parties. The Court held that the 15-day delay in registering the FIR, the specific role attributed to the applicants, and the presence of mala fide intent arising from the ongoing civil litigation justified the confirmation of bail. The Court rejected the complainant's argument regarding non-cooperation with the investigation, noting the absence of evidence that the applicants were summoned for interrogation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the circumstances indicated the applicants' involvement was driven by ulterior motives related to the civil dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, in the absence of a plausible explanation, constitute a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the allegation against the accused is limited to ineffective firing?
  • Is the existence of a pending civil litigation between the parties a relevant factor in determining mala fide intent for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH WARRAYO Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1170 · Sindh High Court · 2000-12-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybelated witnessesdelayed FIRabsence of incriminating recoverycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application for post-arrest bail arising from Crime No. 11 of 2000 registered at Police Station Thariri Mohabat under sections 302, 377, 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 18 of the Offence Against Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicants were entitled to bail when their names did not appear in the FIR, the delayed recording of statements of belatedly introduced witnesses, and the absence of incriminating recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that since the incident was unseen, the names of the witnesses and the applicants were introduced after delay, and no incriminating evidence was recovered, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicants, laying down that delayed implication of accused persons by belated witnesses without corroborative recovery warrants bail when reasonable grounds to believe guilt are lacking at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused are not named in the FIR and their implication comes through belatedly introduced witnesses?
  • Does the absence of any incriminating recovery from the possession of the accused justify bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a case falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out?
  Read full judgment →
• RIAZ Versus THE STATE Qurban Ali H. Chaohan , Habib Ahmed,2001 PCRLJ 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1999-11-18
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtidentification evidenceballistic evidenceappreciation of evidencedeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Special Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the absence of his name in the FIR, the lack of forensic evidence, and significant contradictions in witness testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable case. The court noted that the FIR lacked descriptions of the culprits, the recovery of the weapon was not supported by ballistic evidence, and the testimony regarding the identification of the accused at night from a distance was inconsistent and unreliable. Furthermore, the court observed that the trial judge inconsistently disbelieved key prosecution witnesses regarding other co-accused while relying on them for the appellant. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ordered the appellant's acquittal, and declined the reference for confirmation of the death sentence, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when evidence is insufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the FIR does not name or describe the accused?
  • Does the failure to send a recovered weapon to a ballistic expert weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory accounts regarding the circumstances of the incident?
  • Can a court selectively rely on the testimony of a prosecution witness while disbelieving that same witness regarding co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMAD ALI Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1139 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-26
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaypresumption of innocencepre-judging guiltbail applicationtrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who had been incarcerated since February 1997 without the trial proceeding to conclusion. The applicant contended that the delay in trial was not attributable to him, supported by the trial court diary. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay, despite the trial court's refusal based on the applicant's status as a police constable. The High Court held that the trial court erred by pre-judging the applicant's guilt at the bail stage. The Court emphasized that while bail orders may touch upon case merits, they must be restricted to determining whether a case for bail is made out, rather than deciding the guilt of the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial court's characterization of the applicant as a 'hardened criminal' contradicted the jail superintendent's certificate. Consequently, the High Court granted bail, affirming that statutory delay, in the absence of fault by the accused, warrants relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court determine the guilt of an accused while deciding a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay if the delay is not attributable to their own conduct?
  • Should a court, when considering bail, limit its observations to whether a case for bail is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SATTAR Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempted murdermedical boardprohibitory clausedelay in FIRoctroi contract dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The present applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 18 of 1998 registered under sections 324, 147, 148, 149, 504, 114, 337-A(ii) and 337-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Garaho Town, District Thatta, on account of a dispute over an octroi contract involving a single blow with an iron rod. The core legal question was whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering the absence of a repeated blow regarding the attempt to commit murder charge, the disputed medical certificate regarding the nature of the injury, and the delay in lodging the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant successfully made out a case for further inquiry, noting that the single blow without repetition raises a question as to the applicability of Section 324, the maximum punishment for the disputed injury does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the delay in reporting requires further scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single blow without repetition warrant an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempted murder?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the maximum punishment for the alleged injury does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a dispute over the correctness of a medical certificate at the initial stage create a case for further inquiry?
  • Is a delay in lodging the FIR fatal when the police station is situated in close proximity to the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• IQBAL BANO Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH2000 PCRLJ 779 · Sindh High Court · 1999-09-30
  anti-terrorismmurderpolice encounterstatement of accusedsection 342 Cr.P.C.arms ordinancereduction of sentenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of several special anti-terrorism appeals and a reference arising from a judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for murder, police encounters, and arms offenses. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular versus medical evidence in a police encounter, the reliability of retracted and inconsistent eyewitness testimony, and the mandatory requirement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to put incriminating pieces of evidence—such as the lack of a valid arms license—to the accused. The Sindh High Court held that discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts and the lack of corroboration regarding who fired the fatal shot warranted reducing the principal appellant's death sentence to imprisonment for life, while acquitting the appellants of charges under the Arms Ordinance due to the trial court's failure to put mandatory questions regarding weapon licenses during Section 342 examinations. The key principle laid down is that omitting to put vital incriminating evidence to an accused in their Section 342 statement vitiates a conviction based thereon.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under the Arms Ordinance without being questioned under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the lack of a valid license?
  • Does a material contradiction between the First Information Report and the deposition of eyewitnesses cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the omission to put an incriminating piece of evidence to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. renders such evidence unusable against them?
  • Is a death sentence maintainable when eyewitness accounts regarding the identity of the specific assailant who caused the fatal injury are inconsistent and shrouded in mystery?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus STATE2000 PCRLJ 331 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-11
  post-arrest bailhighway robberyidentification paradevehicle snatchingterrorismappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons facing trial for highway robbery under Section 395 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail despite the absence of their names in the First Information Report and the lack of an identification parade. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicants were involved in a serious act of terrorism involving the snatching of a vehicle at gunpoint, with the stolen vehicle subsequently recovered from their possession. The Court clarified that the absence of the accused's names in the initial report or the failure to conduct an identification parade does not entitle an accused to bail, as these issues require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an identification parade is merely a method to test witness veracity, not a mandatory legal requirement, and that vehicle snatching constitutes an act of terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Is the conduct of an identification parade a mandatory requirement of law for the prosecution of an accused?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the First Information Report entitle them to bail?
  • Is vehicle snatching considered an act of terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD Versus STATE2000 PCRLJ 1956 · Sindh High Court · 2000-04-10
  surety bond forfeitureabsconsion of accusedpenalty reductionrevision applicationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri, imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 upon the applicant-surety, Ali Muhammad, following the absconsion of the accused facing trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the validity of imposing the full penalty on the surety despite his contentions regarding his poverty, humanitarian motives, and the failure of police to trace the absconder. The Sindh High Court held that a surety's responsibility cannot be minimized based on speculation that the accused might be dead or that the police failed to trace him, as the surety assumes the risk upon himself. However, considering the appellant's status as a simple, uneducated, and rustic villager unaware of the full repercussions, the court reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 2,00,000. The key legal principle laid down is that while sureties must be held strictly accountable for the appearance of accused persons in heinous cases, mitigating personal circumstances of rustic sureties may warrant a reduction in the penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of police to secure the custody of an absconding accused absolves a surety from liability under a bail bond?
  • Can the penalty imposed upon a surety for the absconsion of an accused in a murder case be reduced in view of the surety's personal circumstances as a rustic villager?
  • Does the responsibility of a surety get minimized if the accused might be dead, killed, or left the country?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus STATE2000 PCRLJ 1568 · Sindh High Court · 2000-03-14
  quashment of proceedingslocus standiaggrieved personcriminal miscellaneous applicationmaintainabilityblasphemy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant, claiming to be a disciple of the accused, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the accused, Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, before the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism, Mirpur Khas. The proceedings arose from an F.I.R. registered under sections 295-A, 295-B, and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a third party, who is not an accused in the case, has the locus standi to seek the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against another individual. The Court held that the application was not maintainable. The ratio of the decision is that only an aggrieved person, specifically the accused in the criminal proceedings, is competent to approach the Court for the redress of grievances. Since the applicant was not an accused and the actual accused had not appeared before the trial court, the Court dismissed the application, establishing the principle that a third party lacks the standing to challenge criminal proceedings initiated against another person.

  Questions settled

  • Does a third party who is not an accused have the locus standi to seek the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against another person?
  • Is a criminal miscellaneous application for quashment of proceedings maintainable when filed by a person other than the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• HAFEEZULLAH KHAN Versus STATE2000 PCRLJ 1241 · Sindh High Court · 2000-02-11
  criminal appealinvestigating officermaterial witnessnon-examination of witnessremand of casemurder trialocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Ramzan, who was found guilty of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. The core legal question before the Court was whether the failure of the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in a criminal trial vitiates the conviction. The Court held that the Investigating Officer is a crucial witness who collects evidence and holds a pivotal position in the criminal justice process. The Court determined that the non-examination of the I.O., without compelling reasons such as death or unavailability despite diligent efforts, renders a conviction unsustainable. The principle laid down is that the Investigating Officer is a material witness whose absence, without proper justification, undermines the integrity of the trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the case to the trial Court with directions to examine the Investigating Officer or a competent substitute, and to reassess the evidence to decide the matter afresh within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer in a criminal trial render the conviction unsustainable?
  • Is the Investigating Officer considered a material witness in a criminal case?
  • Can a trial court remand a case for the examination of the Investigating Officer after the prosecution has closed its evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL LATEEF Versus STATE2000 PCRLJ 1201 · Sindh High Court · 2000-01-19
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilityabsconding accusedcriminal revisionpenalty impositionbail bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order of the Special Judge (S.T.A.) imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on a surety for the forfeiture of a bail bond. The applicant stood surety for an accused who was granted pre-arrest bail but subsequently absconded. Despite being granted multiple opportunities by both the trial court and the High Court to produce the accused, the surety failed to do so, repeatedly seeking extensions without taking positive steps to secure the accused's presence. The court held that bail constitutes a transfer of custody to the surety, who bears the responsibility for the accused's appearance. While acknowledging that courts must avoid undue leniency or severity when imposing penalties for bond forfeiture, the court found the surety's conduct demonstrated a lack of diligence and persistent procrastination. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's order, finding no illegality or infirmity, and dismissed the revision application, directing the recovery of the penalty amount in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal responsibility of a surety regarding the production of an accused person in court?
  • Does a court have the discretion to impose a penalty on a surety when an accused person absconds?
  • What principles should a court consider when determining the severity of a penalty imposed on a surety for bond forfeiture?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE2000 PCRLJ 1160 · Sindh High Court · 2000-03-03
  jail appealQatl-shibh-i-Amdsentence reductionpayment of DiyatinstalmentsPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Badin, wherein the appellant was convicted for Qatl-shibh-i-Amd and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment as Ta'zir along with payment of Diyat, under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel conceded to the conviction but prayed for modification of the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, alongside payment of Diyat by instalments. The Sindh High Court examined Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the payment of Diyat in instalments and the release of a convict upon furnishing security. The Court held that the substantive sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, while the Diyat amount was fixed approximately in the absence of precise historical silver price data, permitting the appellant to pay it through monthly instalments upon furnishing adequate security and executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of imprisonment for Qatl-shibh-i-Amd be reduced to the period already undergone by the convict with the consent of the parties?
  • Whether Diyat can be paid in instalments spread over a period as contemplated under Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a convict be released on bail or security when unable to pay the Diyat amount in a lump sum?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus STATE2000 PCRLJ 1155 · Sindh High Court · 2000-02-24
  jurisdictionFederal Shariat Courtcriminal appealHudood lawsTa'zirdacoityOffences Against Property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal addresses the jurisdictional competence of the High Court versus the Federal Shariat Court to hear an appeal against a conviction under section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the accused was originally charged under section 17(2) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, but convicted of Tazir under section 20 of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether an appeal against a conviction and sentence exceeding two years passed under Tazir during a trial initiated under the Ordinance lies before the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court. The Sindh High Court held that the appeal is not competent before the High Court and must be presented to the Federal Shariat Court. The ratio laid down is that where a trial is conducted for an offence under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and results in a conviction and sentence exceeding two years—even if punished under Ta'zir or under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to the Ordinance—the exclusive forum for appeal under section 24 of the Ordinance is the Federal Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following a trial initiated under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 lies before the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court?
  • Does the award of punishment under Ta'zir instead of Hadd take a case out of the ambit of section 24 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 regarding appellate jurisdiction?
  • What is the appellate forum under section 24 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for a sentence of imprisonment exceeding two years?
  Read full judgment →
• TANVEER AHMED Versus STATE1999 PCRLJ 629 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
• TAHIRUDDIN Versus STATE1999 PCRLJ 394 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1999 PCRLJ 2121 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM SIDDIQUI Versus STATE1999 PCRLJ 1486 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• KISHORE KUMAR Versus THE STATE1999 PCRLJ 1232 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
• QAIM ALI SHAH Versus STATE1999 PCRLJ 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
• IMTIAZ Versus THE STATE1999 PCRLJ 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
• ANTHONY GONSALVES Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 489 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
• ALI DINO KHUHRO Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 464 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISRAIL KHAN Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 265 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-01Read full judgment →
• ANWAR KHAN Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 1975 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJEED Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 1847 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RASHEED Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 1623 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 1558 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BUX Versus STATE1998 PCRLJ 1548 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JABBAR Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 1465 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
• STATE Versus SHAHZAD WALI1998 PCRLJ 1020 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• ALI AKBAR Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 993 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• SAEEDUR REHMAN KHAN Versus ISLAM BARI SIDDIQUI1997 PCRLJ 982 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• NASIR AHMED Versus STATE1997 PCRLJ 976 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• ZEESHAN KAZMI Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 881 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 826 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAHID Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 791 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ Versus STATE1997 PCRLJ 79 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 739 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
• SYED MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 733 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
• GORDIL Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 730 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• WAZIR ALI QAZI Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 725 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-30Read full judgment →
• SARDAR ALI Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 722 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• GUL ZAMIN Versus STATE1997 PCRLJ 713 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN1997 PCRLJ 710 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
• NIAZ AHMAD Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 707 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-22Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1997 PCRLJ 705 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-28Read full judgment →
• KENNETH MARSHAL Versus THE STATE AND 5 OTHERS1997 PCRLJ 694 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAQEEM Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 690 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-30Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RASHEED Versus SHARIF1997 PCRLJ 685 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-20Read full judgment →
• DILBAR Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 679 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• QADIR BUX Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 674 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID BALOCH Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 671 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE ALIAS RAFT DANISH Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 670 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE ALIAS RAFI DANISH Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 665 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• PIR BUX ALIAS LALA Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 646 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• JALAL AHMED KHAN Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 639 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1997 PCRLJ 637 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• MST. AZIZ FATIMA THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 618 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-27Read full judgment →
• SHEIKH LIAQUAT HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 61 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• MOINUDDIN Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 603 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus ABDUL HAMEED1997 PCRLJ 597 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• MST. NADIA SIDDIQUE Versus S.H.O.1997 PCRLJ 594 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →