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.

• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Alias JAN MUIHAMMAD vs The STATE1987 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-29
  leave to appealcapital punishmentocular evidencecredibility of witnesssite planmurderreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed his death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of ocular evidence and whether physical obstructions, such as the branches of a tree noted in the site plan, rendered it impossible for the sole eyewitness to witness the fatal occurrence from her stated position. The Supreme Court observed that the submissions challenging the credibility of the eyewitness testimony based on the draftsman's cross-examination carry considerable force. Consequently, the Court held that the case requires further examination and granted leave to appeal to consider the reliability of the eyewitness account. The principle laid down is that material contradictions and physical impediments regarding visibility highlighted in the site plan warrant a deeper reappraisal of ocular testimony in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eyewitness can be relied upon when physical obstructions in the site plan cast doubt on visibility?
  • Does a discrepancy regarding the eyewitness's vantage point warrant the grant of leave to appeal in a capital sentence case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Alias JAN And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIULLAH vs THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR ABANDONED1987 MLD 558 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIUDDIN vs Mst. NASEEM PARVEEN And Another1987 P Cr. L J 807 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1964 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs The STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2373 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs NASIR FAROOQ and others1986 MLD 155 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE And Others vs THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE, LAHORE1987 SCMR 1412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-26
  Border Area Committeecancellation of allotmentjurisdictionwrit petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the cancellation of their land allotment by the Border Area Committee. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allotted agricultural land in Kasur, which the Border Area Committee subsequently cancelled on grounds of competency and the transfer date of the claim. Although the High Court found that the Border Area Committee lacked jurisdiction over land falling within the urban area, it nevertheless dismissed the writ petition based on conjectural assumptions regarding the genuineness of the claim. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court, having determined a lack of jurisdiction in the canceling authority, erred in denying relief based on extraneous assumptions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised require detailed examination regarding the propriety of the High Court's refusal to grant relief despite finding a lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Border Area Committee has jurisdiction to cancel an allotment of land falling within an urban area?
  • Can the High Court decline relief to a petitioner on conjectural assumptions after finding that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and 3 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1965 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Alias MOHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs THE STATE And Another1987 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-22
  bail cancellationcriminal petitionexercise of discretionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition directed against the order of the Lahore High Court which cancelled the pre-trial or post-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge and ordered his arrest. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its discretion legally and properly in cancelling the bail. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court was proper and that the case was not one in which bail should have been allowed in the first place. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the cancellation of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's discretion in cancelling bail was exercised illegally or improperly?
  • Is it a fit case for the grant of bail where the lower court improperly allowed it?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ-- Appellant vs THE STATE-1987 MLD 3103 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-09
  murder convictionsentence reductionsudden fightcriminal appealleave to appeallife imprisonmentbrutal injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction for murder. The petitioner, Muhammad Rafiq, was originally tried and convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence. Upon appeal, the High Court altered the conviction to Section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to imprisonment for life. The petitioner sought a further reduction in his sentence, arguing that the fatal injury, which involved a severe blow to the neck, occurred during a sudden fight and thus warranted leniency. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the weapon used, the location of the injury, and its severity. The Court held that the High Court was justified in awarding a life sentence given the brutality of the injury, which nearly severed the deceased's neck. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for further reduction in the sentence, noting that the petitioner had already received the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury that nearly severs the neck of a deceased person preclude a reduction in sentence even if the act occurred during a sudden fight?
  • Is the High Court justified in maintaining a sentence of life imprisonment when the nature of the weapon and the extent of the injury indicate extreme violence?
  • Can a petitioner claim entitlement to a lesser sentence based on a sudden fight when the physical evidence demonstrates a severe and fatal injury?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1360 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28
  post-arrest baildetermination of ageossification testjuvenile offendercommon intentionabscondencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Muhammad Rafiq, who along with three co-accused brothers, was charged with premeditated murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of being a minor below 16 years of age under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alongside considerations regarding the attribution of the fatal blow, the medical evidence, and the non-recovery of the weapon. The Sindh High Court held that the cumulative effect of the birth entry indicating minority, the medical margin of error in ossification tests, the fact that the fatal blow was attributed to a co-accused rather than the applicant, and the absence of recurrence justified granting bail. The court laid down the principle that where conflicting evidence exists regarding the age of an accused person claiming minority at the bail stage, the benefit of doubt regarding age should lean toward the accused when combined with other mitigating factors in the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person claiming to be under the age of 16 years is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a birth certificate despite an ossification test report suggesting a slightly higher age?
  • Can the cumulative effect of minority, non-attribution of the fatal blow, and lack of weapon recovery constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused by itself disentitle them to bail when other mitigating factors are present?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAY, QUETTA DIVISION, QUETTA And 2 Others1987 PLC 790 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs Agha NISAR AHMED And Other1987 SCMR 884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-03
  leave to appealconstitutional petitionsettlement authoritiesclerical mistakerectification of transfer documentfindings of facturban settlementstay orderpossessiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment, which had upheld an order by the Administrator Residual Property. The case originated from an urban settlement matter concerning the transfer of a shop. The core legal question revolved around the Settlement Authorities' power to rectify a clerical mistake in transfer documents, specifically changing the transferred shop number from 5 to 6 in favor of Abdur Rashid, and whether the findings of fact by the lower authorities were open to interference. The Court held that Settlement Authorities possess the lawful authority to correct such clerical mistakes. It affirmed the concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and the Administrator Residual Property that Abdur Rashid was in possession of shop No. 6 and that it had been correctly transferred to him. The Court also noted adversely the petitioner's transfer of shop No. 6, which was made under Settlement Scheme No. VIII on the same day a status quo order was issued by the High Court. The petition was dismissed as the findings of fact were deemed unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Do Settlement Authorities have the lawful authority to correct clerical mistakes in transfer documents?
  • Can findings of fact by lower authorities be interfered with by higher courts if they are unexceptionable?
  • What is the effect of a property transfer made in contravention of a stay order?
  • Can a party claim transfer of a shop based on possession when an affidavit admits tenancy under another party?
  • Is a High Court's observation that an application for rectification of a mistake can be made to Settlement Authorities a valid directive?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MIR vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT1987 CLC 794 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1987 CLC 898 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN vs AZAD JAMMU A KASHMIR GOVERNMENT Through SECRETARY EDUCATION And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 311 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq And Other vs GHULAM RASOOL AND 5 Other1987 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAEES vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 296 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QASSIM vs TAHIR MEMON and others1987 CLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QASIM vs The STATE1987 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02
  leave to appealmurderocular testimonyrecovery of weaponblood-stained weaponappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner for murder under a sentence of life imprisonment and fine. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony and the evidentiary value of a blood-stained weapon recovered days after the occurrence, particularly regarding the non-examination of an independent witness who allegedly turned hostile. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the petitioner based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative recovery evidence were unexceptionable. The Court affirmed that minor contentions regarding the washing of bloodstains on the weapon of offence do not displace positive forensic reports without trial-stage proof to the contrary. Leave to appeal was consequently refused and the petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eyewitness account can be relied upon when another independent witness is given up by the prosecution as won over?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon after four days automatically negate the presence of human bloodstains on it?
  • Whether concurrent factual findings of lower courts regarding a murder conviction warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QASIM And Another vs THE STATE And Another1987 SCMR 1857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-21
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationpolice misconductfalse implicationsodomycriminal liabilitydiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to two police officers accused of offences under sections 365, 342, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The complainant alleged that the petitioners attempted to commit sodomy upon him. While the Additional Sessions Judge initially granted post-arrest bail, the Lahore High Court subsequently cancelled it, prompting the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the complainant, a student from a respectable family, had no apparent motive to falsely implicate police officers, thereby tarnishing his own reputation. Furthermore, the Court observed an absence of previous enmity between the parties. The principle laid down is that in the absence of evidence of false implication or prior enmity, the credibility of a complainant's report is not easily discarded at the bail stage, justifying the cancellation of bail when serious allegations are supported by prima facie evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of previous enmity a relevant factor in determining the validity of a criminal complaint for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the cancellation of bail by a High Court require evidence of a motive for false implication by the complainant?
  • Can a court refuse to grant bail where there is no prima facie reason for a complainant to falsely implicate the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PUNHAL vs KAMAL KHAN And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2343 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PERVEZ vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI And 2 Others1987 PLC (C.S.) 528 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NISAR ALI vs PRINCIPAL AND CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE1987 MLD 2239(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NISAB KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1987 CLC 1329 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NIAZ Alias NAZ And Another vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2247 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1987 MLD 2885 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SWAT And 21987 P Cr. L J 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR and 6 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZEER and 3 others vs DIVISIONAL CANAL OFFICER, EASTERN1987 MLD 3049 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATEK.L.R. 1987 Shirat Cases 15 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 940 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs SHER MUHAMMAD1987 PLD Supreme Court 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-10
  pre-emptionforum of appealpecuniary jurisdictionvalue of improvementsoriginal suit valuecivil court decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the question of whether an appeal lies to the High Court from a civil court decree in a pre-emption suit valued below the pecuniary limit for the High Court, where the decree directs the pre-emptor to pay a sum exceeding that limit as the value of improvements on the land. The appellant brought a pre-emption suit for agricultural land valued at Rs. 200 for jurisdictional purposes, but the trial court decreed the suit subject to payment of over Rs. 95,000, including the value of improvements. The Lahore High Court returned the appeal for presentation to the District Judge, relying on precedent. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the separate valuation of improvements altered the appellate forum. The Supreme Court held that under Section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, the forum of appeal is determined strictly by the value of the original suit as fixed for jurisdiction, and not by the ultimate decretal amount, sale price, or conditional payments ordered for improvements under Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the forum of appeal in a pre-emption suit is determined by the value of the original suit or by the amount of the conditional decree including improvements?
  • Does a direction in a pre-emption decree to pay a sum exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction limit for improvements alter the appellate forum under the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962?
  • Is the jurisdictional value for an appeal affected by the market value or sale price of the subject-matter in agricultural land pre-emption suits?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PEHALWAN And Other1987 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12
  ocular testimonychance witnessesmedical evidenceacquittalcriminal appealdelayed reportingmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted three respondents of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been convicted by a trial court for the murder of the deceased, allegedly by throttling. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by witnesses who surfaced more than a month after the incident, and whether the medical evidence conclusively established homicide. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding that the eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose conduct was highly suspicious. Specifically, these witnesses failed to report the incident to the victim's family despite visiting them shortly after the occurrence. Furthermore, the medical evidence was inconclusive, as the abrasions on the deceased's neck could have resulted from a medical fit rather than criminal throttling. The Court affirmed the principle that where ocular testimony is demonstrably planted and unreliable, and medical evidence is ambiguous, conviction cannot be sustained, necessitating an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony that was delayed by more than a month without a reasonable explanation?
  • Does medical evidence indicating throttling necessarily prove a criminal act when alternative medical explanations for neck marks exist?
  • Is it safe to rely on the testimony of chance witnesses who failed to inform the victim's family of the incident despite having the opportunity to do so?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And 5 Others1987 PCr.LJ 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN LASHKARANI And 2 Other1987 SCMR 1863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-21
  petition for leave to appealenhancement of sentencealteration of convictionfirearm injuriesmitigating circumstancesprolonged trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondents was altered from Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and their sentence was reduced from five years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and reducing the sentence based on the mitigating circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided cogent reasons for its decision, including the simple nature of the firearm injuries, the lack of repeated firing, the sudden motive arising from suspected illicit relations, the absence of previous enmity, and the agony of a prolonged trial lasting over nine years. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition for enhancement of sentence, laying down that mitigating circumstances such as delayed trial and absence of previous enmity justify sentence reduction in appropriate cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering a conviction from section 307 to section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the firearm injuries sustained are simple in nature?
  • Can the agony of a prolonged trial be considered a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a sentence?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with a High Court's sentence reduction order based on cogent reasoning and mitigating factors?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHAH vs THE STATE1987 MLD 933 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, RAWALPINDI1987 PLC (C.S.) 819 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ CH. and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 982 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2187 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another vs The STATE1987 SCMR 1399 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-18
  parolegood conduct prisonersprobational releaseocular testimonyre-appraisal of evidencemurderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the petitioners' convictions and sentences under sections 302/34 and 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The Supreme Court evaluated the concurrent findings of fact regarding ocular testimony, motive, and medical evidence, and declined to re-appraise the evidence, holding that the testimony of related witnesses was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence and motive. However, the Court addressed a distinct legal question concerning the status of convicts released on parole. Upon examining the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Act, 1926, the Pakistan Prison Rules, and section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court held that the period spent by a convict on parole counts towards their sentence and that the High Court erred in summarily ordering their immediate rearrest under the mistaken impression that they were on bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on merits regarding the conviction, but the direction for immediate imprisonment while on valid parole was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period spent by a convict out of prison on parole is to be reckoned as a part of the period of imprisonment to which he was sentenced?
  • Does a high court have justification to order the immediate arrest and recommitment to prison of convicts who are lawfully released on parole pending appeal?
  • Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Is the credibility of eye-witnesses divisible when some co-accused are acquitted while others are convicted?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another vs THE STATE And Other1987 SCMR 1052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06
  murderre-appraisal of evidenceself-defencebenefit of doubtcriminal petitionpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal petitions arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a double murder case and injuries sustained during a land dispute. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court properly appreciated the evidence regarding self-defence, possession of the disputed land, and the specific roles of the accused persons, and whether the Supreme Court should re-appraise evidence in a petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any misreading of evidence or erroneous determination of a legal principle, the mere contention that evidence was not properly appreciated is insufficient for interference. The petitions filed by both the convict and the complainant were dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with a High Court judgment merely on the ground that the evidence was not properly appreciated?
  • Can the right of private defence be claimed after the opposite party has receded?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused when medical and circumstantial evidence contradicts the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEER HUMAYON vs Mst. SYEDA UMMATUL KHABIR1987 SCMR 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-22
  habeas corpuschild custodyHizanatminorwelfare of the minorGuardian Courtjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court issued in habeas corpus proceedings, which directed the petitioner (father) to hand over custody of his minor daughter, aged under four, to the respondent (mother). The petitioner argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate custody disputes between spouses under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, relying on precedent suggesting such matters should be handled by a Guardian Judge. The High Court had distinguished the case based on the parties' marital status, noting they were no longer married. The Supreme Court declined to definitively rule on the jurisdictional question regarding the scope of habeas corpus in custody matters. Instead, the Court focused on the welfare of the minor, determining that it would be unfair to remove the child from the mother's custody at such a tender age while the parties were still entitled to seek a final determination from the Guardian Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the status quo pending formal resolution by the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine custody of a minor child?
  • Is it appropriate for a High Court to grant interim custody of a minor in habeas corpus proceedings pending a final decision by a Guardian Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEEM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1758 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEEM QURESHI and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 3306 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAJIB and others vs REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AZAD1987 CLC 2446 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAIM vs Syed MUHAMMAD AHMAD RIZVI1987 MLD 2367 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAIM vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL1987 PLC (C.S.) 404 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1987-01-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 336 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs THE STATE- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P C r. L J 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR vs THE STATE1987 MLD 2300 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN and 7 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 501 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSTAQEEM vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1987 CLC 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MURTAZA vs SAFIA BAI1987 MLD 468 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR- vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 446 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs THE STATE1987 PLD Lahore 446 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, SERVICES, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT1987 PLC (C. S.) 5 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 831 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR BIN ISMAIL vs Miss ZEENAT QURESHI1987 CLC 1712 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, HIGHWAY CIRCLE, SARGODHA And 4 Other1987 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06
  seniority disputeservice lawgovernment servicepromotionreversionService Tribunaljoining time
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a Service Tribunal order regarding his seniority and subsequent reversion from the post of Head Draftsman. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner’s seniority relative to respondent No. 5 was incorrectly determined and whether the promotion of respondent No. 4 to Head Draftsman was valid. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authorities correctly established seniority based on the factual record of joining times, noting that respondent No. 5 joined in the forenoon while the petitioner joined in the afternoon on the same day. The Court further upheld the promotion of respondent No. 4, finding that he was senior to both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 and possessed the requisite technical qualifications. The Court affirmed that seniority is determined by the actual date and time of joining service, and that competent authorities possess the power to correct erroneous seniority lists and rectify promotion decisions to ensure the senior-most eligible candidate is appointed. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time of joining (forenoon vs. afternoon) determine inter se seniority between government employees joining on the same day?
  • Can a competent authority correct a previously issued seniority list that was found to be erroneous?
  • Is the promotion of a senior employee valid if they were initially bypassed due to a misunderstanding regarding their technical qualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUBEEN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1568 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOEEN vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH), KARACHI1987 PLC (C.S.) 640 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1987-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MATAH and 2 others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAST vs INAYAT1987 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17
  pre-emption suitmemorandum of appealcopy of decreeprocedural requirementcompetency of appealremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal concerns the procedural requirement of filing a copy of the decree with a memorandum of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent filed a pre-emption suit which was dismissed by the trial court. Upon appeal, the respondent failed to attach a copy of the decree to the memorandum of appeal, leading the Additional District Judge to dismiss the appeal as incompetent. The High Court subsequently set aside this dismissal, reasoning that the court possessed the full record of the suit and thus did not require a separate copy of the decree. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates the attachment of the decree copy, and this requirement cannot be dispensed with. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the petitioner's contention regarding the mandatory nature of filing the decree copy warrants further consideration, and stayed the final disposal of the appeal by the Additional District Judge pending the outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Is the attachment of a copy of the decree to the memorandum of appeal a mandatory requirement under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an appellate court dispense with the requirement of filing a copy of the decree if the full record of the suit is already before it?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MASOOD KHAN BHATTI vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA1987 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-18
  pre-emptionshariat appellate benchretrospective effectdeclaratory statutelimitationwaiverregistration of sale deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a pre-emption suit where the respondent, claiming a superior right of pre-emption as the sister of the vendor, successfully obtained a decree. The appellant-vendee challenged the decree, contending that the Shariat Appellate Bench's decision in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) had a retrospective declaratory effect that extinguished the respondent's pre-emption category in pending proceedings. The appellant also raised issues of limitation and waiver. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction exercised under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is adjudicatory and not declaratory in the traditional retrospective sense, and the express words of Article 203-D(3)(b) preclude retrospective application to pending or past transactions. On limitation, the Court ruled that since the Transfer of Property Act 1882 applied, sale of immovable property valued over Rs.100 required registration; thus, possession obtained prior to registration was not 'under the sale' for calculating limitation under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court under Article 203-D of the Constitution has retrospective effect on pending pre-emption proceedings?
  • Can possession of land obtained prior to the registration of a sale deed be considered possession 'under the sale' for the purpose of determining limitation in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does a refusal by a pre-emptor's husband to purchase property constitute a waiver of the pre-emption right by the female pre-emptor herself?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAROOF vs SECRETARY, HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, LOCAL1987 PLC (C.S.) 207 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANSHA and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALIK and 5 others vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE and 3 others1987 MLD 757 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALAK vs Mst. RABIA BIBI and 22 others1987 CLC 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD vs GHULAM RASOOL And Other1987 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02
  specific performanceex parte proceedingsservice of summonsclosing of evidenceprocedural delayrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale filed by the petitioner against the sole defendant, Nazir Hussain. Following the defendant's failure to appear, the trial court ordered ex parte proceedings based on a process-server's report of personal service. The defendant subsequently applied to set aside these proceedings, alleging he was never served. The trial court framed an issue regarding the validity of the service. Over the next three years, the petitioner failed to produce evidence to rebut the defendant's claim of non-service despite numerous adjournments. Consequently, the trial court closed the petitioner's evidence, ruled in favor of the defendant, and set aside the ex parte order. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion in closing the petitioner's evidence after three years of inaction. The Court affirmed that a litigant cannot claim insufficient opportunity when they fail to utilize multiple opportunities provided over an extended period.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court close a party's evidence after they fail to produce it over a period of three years?
  • Is a trial court justified in setting aside ex parte proceedings when the defendant successfully challenges the validity of service?
  • Does the failure to utilize multiple opportunities for evidence production constitute a valid ground for challenging a trial court's order to close evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 312 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1987 PLC (C.S.) 793 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 2456 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs ISLAM UD DIN And Other1987 SCMR 113 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-01
  transfer of propertyfinality of transfer ordersettlement authoritiescorrection of P.T.O.boundary disputedisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-12-1973 passed in Writ Petition No. 484-R of 1967. The core dispute arose when the Deputy Settlement Commissioner allowed a correction of the respondents' transfer order regarding plot boundaries, substituting khasra numbers long after the original transfer orders in favor of both parties had become final. The Additional Settlement Commissioner allowed an appeal setting aside the correction, and the Settlement Commissioner dismissed a revision against it. The High Court, however, set aside both appellate and revisional orders on a technical ground. The Supreme Court examined the matter and held that once transfer orders in favor of parties have become final, subordinate settlement authorities have no legal competence to modify them or alter boundaries. Consequently, all subsequent orders passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner, and Settlement Commissioner were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, leaving the original final transfer orders operative, while clarifying that disputes regarding exact boundaries of transferred properties must be resolved by a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Deputy Settlement Commissioner modify or correct transfer orders after they have become final?
  • Do settlement authorities have the jurisdiction to determine exact boundary disputes of transferred properties?
  • What is the proper forum to resolve a dispute regarding the exact boundaries of a property transferred under settlement laws?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs GHULAM RASUL and others1987 MLD 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF BHATTI vs THE CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD (E) GUJRANWALA1987 SCMR 1936 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-17
  service tribunaldepartmental appealgrievance noticeindustrial relations ordinanceexhaustion of remediescivil servantWAPDAsubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a grievance notice served under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance amounted to substantial compliance with Rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978, to satisfy the first proviso to section 4(1) of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The appellants, former employees of WAPDA, were removed from service and initially pursued remedies before the Labour Court under labour laws before being declared civil servants by the High Court. Upon filing appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised regarding their failure to exhaust departmental remedies under the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The Supreme Court held that a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance is fundamentally different in scope, procedure, and time limits from a departmental appeal under Rule 11, and therefore does not constitute substantial compliance with the mandatory requirements of the law. The Court concluded that mistaken legal advice or a misconception of the applicable legal regime does not excuse a party from fulfilling statutory jurisdictional prerequisites. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a grievance notice given under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance amount to substantial compliance with Rule 11 of the Water and Power Development Authority (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978?
  • Whether the failure to exhaust departmental remedies under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules bars an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973?
  • Can a mistaken view of the law regarding the applicability of labour laws excuse a civil servant from fulfilling statutory jurisdictional requirements for approaching a service tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF And Others vs MUHAMMAD AYUB And Other1987 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-08
  sudden quarrelculpable homicidepremeditationException 4 to Section 300enhancement of sentencecriminal revisionwatercourse dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that altered the convictions of three accused persons from Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The original trial court had convicted the accused for the murders of two individuals arising from a dispute over a watercourse. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded that the incident occurred suddenly during an altercation without premeditation, and that the accused did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner. Consequently, the High Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's appraisal of the evidence, holding that the findings regarding the sudden nature of the quarrel were correct. The Court dismissed the petition seeking enhancement of sentence, dismissed the petition of one accused as infructuous due to his death, and dismissed the jail petition regarding sentencing, thereby upholding the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden quarrel and fight without premeditation attract Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the accused did not take undue advantage of the situation?
  • Is the presence of injuries on the accused a relevant factor in determining the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF And 2 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 966(1) · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LAL vs MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ And 4 Other1987 SCMR 2013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26
  sudden fightleave to appealenhancement of sentenceacquittaljudicial discretioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had maintained the convictions of two respondents for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code but reduced their sentences to the period already undergone, while upholding the acquittal of two other co-accused. The core legal questions concerned whether the incident constituted a pre-planned attack or a sudden fight, and whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in modifying the sentences of the convicted respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of both the trial court and the High Court that the incident arose from a sudden fight triggered by a domestic dispute regarding the custody of a child. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly assessed the nature of the occurrence and that the High Court’s exercise of discretion in reducing the sentences to the time already served was appropriate. The Court declined to interfere with the lower courts' findings of fact or the exercise of judicial discretion regarding sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden fight resulting from a domestic dispute negate the existence of a pre-planned attack?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in reducing sentences to the period already undergone?
  • Is each participant in a sudden fight liable only for their individual acts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHURSHID vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUZAFFAR KHAN And 5 Other1987 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-27
  leave to appealcriminal appealacquittalcorroborative evidencecommon intentioninterested witnessesrecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through petitions for leave to appeal arising from a criminal case involving multiple accused persons. The core legal questions presented for the Court's consideration concern the sufficiency of evidence for conviction when some co-accused have been acquitted, the validity of rejecting corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of weapon empties and their forensic matching, and the application of the principle of common intention regarding the two convicts. In its order, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these specific issues. However, the Court refused leave to appeal against the acquittal of three respondents—Yaqoob, Khalas, and Sattar—concluding that the testimony against them was provided by interested witnesses and lacked any independent corroborative evidence. Consequently, the Court maintained the status quo regarding the incarceration of one of the convicts, Hidayat, ordering that he shall not be released from prison pending the final hearing of the appeals. The judgment focuses on the threshold for appellate review in criminal convictions and the evidentiary requirements for establishing common intention and corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence that resulted in the acquittal of three accused be sufficient for convicting two others without additional incriminating factors?
  • Was the corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of empties and their matching with weapons rejected on unsupportable grounds?
  • Does the evidence in the case establish a common intention among the two convicts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ And Other1987 SCMR 1879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-24
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailsupreme courtcriminal trial delayspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a case registered under section 307, read with sections 109, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's refusal to cancel bail where the initial grounds for refusing cancellation—namely, the imminent conclusion of the trial and undertakings by the accused—subsequently failed or proved illusory due to the transfer of the magistrate and delays caused by the respondents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that interference was unwarranted at this stage, but clarified that since the grounds relied upon by the High Court had proved illusory, the petitioner was at liberty to approach the High Court afresh to reconsider its earlier order in light of the new circumstances. The key principle laid down is that where grounds for sustaining a bail refusal or dismissal of bail cancellation become illusory due to subsequent events, the appropriate forum for reconsideration of bail cancellation is the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of the High Court refusing to cancel bail when the grounds for such refusal have subsequently failed?
  • Can a party approach the High Court afresh for bail cancellation if the grounds upon which an earlier cancellation petition was refused have proved illusory?
  • Does the transfer of a trial magistrate and subsequent trial delays warrant the interference of the Supreme Court in a bail cancellation matter?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Mst. HAYAT BIBI1987 CLC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MIR KHAN1987 PLD Karachi 363 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MAHMOOD SHAH And Other1987 SCMR 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06
  bail cancellationpetition for leave to appealjudicial discretioncriminal murderSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding the grant of bail to the respondents. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with the concurrent exercise of judicial discretion by the courts below in granting bail to persons charged under sections 302, 307, 149, 148, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that since both the lower courts properly exercised their discretion in allowing bail to the respondents, no sufficient ground existed to interfere with the impugned order. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with concurrent discretionary orders granting bail unless perversity or grave illegality is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion by lower courts in granting bail?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a bail cancellation application be maintained without showing compelling grounds of misuse of discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs ARSHAD JAMIL and 2 others1987 MLD 671 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN MEMON, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF PERSONNEL DIVISION, Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs ANWAR HAMEED CHAUDHRY And Another1987 PLC 745 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN JUNEJO vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 1622 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN And Others vs The STATE1987 SCMR 277(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-20
  double murderocular testimonyWajtakkar witnessesappraisal of evidenceleave to appealcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by both the convicts and the complainant against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding a double murder case. The petitioners challenged their convictions under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, while the complainant sought the enhancement of sentences and challenged the acquittal of certain co-accused. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly appraised the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses and the supporting evidence of 'Wajtakkar' witnesses in determining the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, holding that the High Court had conducted a fair and proper appraisal of the evidence. The Court affirmed that where ocular testimony is corroborated by independent witnesses and the physical circumstances of the crime—such as the transportation of dead bodies—necessitate the participation of multiple individuals, the conviction of the accused is legally sound. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with a High Court's factual findings when they are based on a sound and comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by Wajtakkar witnesses?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to maintain convictions where the physical nature of the crime necessitates multiple participants?
  • Is the appraisal of evidence by a High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court when it is found to be fair and proper?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others1987 MLD 3057 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →