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.

• NEWShujat Ali alias Jangi Versus State2026 YLR 2064 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2026-05-14
  post-arrest bailnarcoticshabitual offenderprohibitory clausetransportation of drugscriminal record
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Shujat Ali alias Jangi, facing charges under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession and transportation of 9.99 kg of charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and his criminal history. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the petition, holding that the accused was prima facie involved in the transportation of a significant quantity of narcotics, as established by the investigation and the pointation of the driver who transported the contraband. The court noted that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the accused is a habitual offender with multiple prior convictions and pending cases involving similar offences, which disentitles him to the concession of bail. The court directed the prosecution to submit the challan and ordered the trial court to conclude the proceedings within eight months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a third party's premises, based on the accused's pointation, constitute sufficient grounds for bail?
  • Is an accused with a history of prior convictions and pending narcotics cases entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does an offence under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSajjad Hussain Versus State2025 YLR 529 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-12-10Read full judgment →
• NEWShakir Abbas Versus State2025 YLR 399 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-07-06Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed raza Farooq Versus State2025 YLR 147 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-11-30Read full judgment →
• NEWRashid Mehmood Versus State2026 YLR 2182 · Federal Shariat Court · 2026-05-19
  appeal against convictionmurderlurking house trespassdying declarationadmissibility of evidencevideo evidenceidentification paraderecovery of stolen propertybenefit of doubtacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This judgment concerns appeals filed by Rashid Mehmood, Asad, and Javed against their conviction and sentences for murder, lurking house trespass, and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Hudood Ordinance, and the KP Arms Act. The core legal questions revolved around the sufficiency of prosecution evidence, particularly the admissibility and reliability of a dying declaration, identification test parade, video evidence, and recoveries. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the dying declaration unreliable due to lack of medical corroboration regarding the deceased's capacity to make a statement and inconsistencies regarding knowledge of stolen articles. Video evidence was deemed inadmissible as it was not properly exhibited or cross-examined. Recoveries were also found to lack sanctity due to procedural irregularities and contradictions. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted all appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be treated as a dying declaration under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a dying declaration when the deceased's medical fitness to make such a statement is not medically corroborated?
  • Under what conditions is video evidence admissible in court, particularly when not properly exhibited or cross-examined?
  • What is the impact of procedural irregularities and contradictions in the recovery of weapons and stolen articles on their evidentiary value?
  • Can an identification test parade be relied upon if eye-witnesses did not provide features of the culprits in the FIR or assign specific roles to the accused?
  • Is a disclosure statement made by one accused before the police admissible against a co-accused?
  • Can a trial court rely on evidence (like a video) without formally admitting it or allowing cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSultan Ali Khan Versus State2025 YLR 49 · Federal Shariat Court · 2024-10-23
  waj-takkarabscondencecriminal appealoffence of zinamedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal was preferred by the convict Sultan Ali Khan against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded under Sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved the reliability of 'waj-takkar' (chance encounter) evidence, the legal effect of failing to properly bring on record preserved evidence under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the proof of abscondence. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's presence through reliable waj-takkar evidence, did not lawfully prove the abscondence of the accused in the absence of primary proclamation records, and failed to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The key principle laid down is that chance encounter evidence without corroboration or plausible explanation of witness presence is weak, and abscondence cannot be deemed proved without fulfilling mandatory statutory requirements regarding proclamation records.

  Questions settled

  • Whether waj-takkar testimony can be treated as reliable evidence without a plausible explanation for the witness's presence at the spot?
  • Can abscondence be legally proved when the prosecution fails to produce the warrants of arrest and proclamations on the judicial record?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to connect an accused with an offence in the absence of substantive connecting prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMehrullah Versus State2025 YLR 761 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-08-31
  murderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRinterested witnessescriminal appealacquittalocular testimonymedical evidence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular and medical evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious flaws, including delayed First Information Report with admitted consultation, major contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of eyewitnesses, uncorroborated interested witnesses, and failure to recover the crime weapon. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and where the prosecution evidence is riddled with material discrepancies and unnatural conduct of witnesses, the conviction cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delayed First Information Report admitted to be the result of consultation can form the basis of a valid conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when multiple reasonable doubts appear in the prosecution case?
  • Can medical evidence alone establish the identity of an accused or connect him with the commission of an offense in the absence of reliable direct evidence?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful can be relied upon to maintain a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWFIDA HUSSAIN Versus State2025 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-29
  sentencing discretionQatl-i-amdenhancement of sentencemitigating factorsSection 302(b) PPCSection 367(5) CrPCcriminal appealmiscarriage of justice
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the appellant's conviction for murder but enhanced his sentence from life imprisonment to death. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of sentencing discretion under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and whether the High Court correctly applied Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in enhancing the sentence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its enhancement. The Court ruled that Section 302(b) provides two distinct, alternate legal sentences—death or life imprisonment—and neither is inherently the "normal" punishment. Sentencing discretion must be exercised based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. While Section 367(5) requires trial courts to record reasons for opting for life imprisonment, this does not mandate death as the default penalty. Furthermore, appellate courts must exercise the power to enhance sentences sparingly, intervening only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice, rather than substituting their own sentencing preference. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's sentence of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the sentence of death the normal punishment for an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Does Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, require an appellate court to enhance a sentence if the trial court failed to record reasons for not awarding the death penalty?
  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court exercise its power to enhance a sentence awarded by a trial court?
  • Are the punishments of death and life imprisonment under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, alternate legal sentences?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWABDULLAH alias Muhammad alias Masab Versus State2025 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• NEWTANVIR SARFRAZ KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Director Legal, Islamabad2025 SCMR 98 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-02Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. RAMZANU BIBI Versus IBRAHIM (deceased)2025 SCMR 955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-25Read full judgment →
• NEWPAYONEER INC., Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2025 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-09Read full judgment →
• NEWCHETAN Versus State2025 SCMR 944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-06
  murderbenefit of the doubtmedico-ocular conflictdelay in FIRidentification in darknessunproved motivecriminal appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the absence of identification sources in night occurrences, glaring medico-ocular contradictions, unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report, inconsequential weapon recoveries without matching crime empties, and unproved motive. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that multiple major discrepancies and the lack of corroborative evidence created insurmountable doubts regarding the guilt of the accused. The ratio laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish identity, medical evidence contradicts the ocular account, and unexplained delays mar the proceedings, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a mentioned source of light in a night-time occurrence makes the identification of the accused doubtful?
  • Is a glaring conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious suspicion on the prosecution story?
  • Can the recovery of a weapon be considered a corroborative piece of evidence when no matching crime empties are recovered from the place of occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWQazi MUMTAZ HUSSAIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Revenue2025 SCMR 939 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-21Read full judgment →
• NEWAKBAR SAEED Versus State2025 SCMR 935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-10
  Qatl-e-Amdocular evidencemedical evidenceinterested witnessescriminal appealappreciation of evidenceminor discrepancies
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by close relatives of the deceased and whether alleged contradictions between this testimony and medical evidence necessitated acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction. The Court held that when ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, it takes precedence over medical evidence. It established that minor discrepancies of a trivial nature, which do not affect the material aspects of the prosecution's case, should be ignored. Furthermore, the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship with the deceased, absent evidence of an ulterior motive for false implication. The Court emphasized that the quality of evidence, rather than the quantity or the status of the witness, determines its credibility. As the lower courts' findings regarding the presence of eye-witnesses were consistent and free from misreading, the conviction was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence automatically warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship?
  • To what extent do minor discrepancies in prosecution testimony affect the reliability of the overall case?
  • Is ocular evidence, when found trustworthy, entitled to preference over medical evidence in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD FAISAL Prop., F.A.Traders, Lahore Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, RTO-II, LAHORE2025 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
• NEWJEEHAND Versus State2025 SCMR 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-14
  control of narcotic substancessafe custody of case propertyregister no xixpolice rulescollective forensic reportspy informationcriminal appealacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which were upheld by the High Court of Balochistan. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the alleged narcotic substance, and whether procedural lapses regarding search warrants, non-recording of spy information, and defective forensic examination vitiated the conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the failure to produce Register No. XIX, non-compliance with the Police Rules, 1934 regarding safe custody and transmission, bypassing the nearest designated forensic laboratory, and relying on a collective forensic report instead of individual tests. The key principles laid down include the mandatory nature of strict compliance with procedural rules in penal statutes, the inadmissibility of oral testimony in place of required documentary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the imperative duty of investigating agencies to trace the entire supply chain and assets in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether oral testimony is admissible to prove the safe custody of case property in the absence of the mandatory Register No. XIX under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to maintain and produce the road certificate and register entries for safe custody and transmission create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Is a collective forensic report for multiple samples of seized narcotics legally sustainable without individual testing for each sample?
  • Does the failure of the seizing officer to obtain a search warrant upon prior information under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vitiate the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWFAISAL ALI Versus DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, GUJRAT2025 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• NEWNawabzada MUHAMMAD FATEH KHAN Versus MUMTAZ AHMAD2025 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ASIM Versus State2025 SCMR 905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• NEWSHER AFZAL Versus State2025 SCMR 894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25
  death sentencemurderocular accountrelated witnessesbenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusmotivemedical evidence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  These criminal appeals arise from judgments of the Lahore High Court maintaining the death sentences awarded to appellants Sher Afzal and Muhammad Latif for the brutal murder of five members of a single family. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the effect of minor contradictions in testimony, the application of the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus principle, and the sufficiency of ocular accounts supported by medical evidence in capital cases. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions and death sentences, holding that minor discrepancies do not vitiate otherwise trustworthy testimonies, that a witness's close relationship to the deceased does not render them 'interested' in the absence of enmity or a motive to falsely implicate, and that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principles laid down include the proper parameters of 'reasonable doubt', the modification of the falsus in omnibus rule in Pakistani jurisprudence requiring contradictions to be material, and the principle that substitution of real culprits in heinous multiple murder cases is an extremely rare phenomenon.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  • Does the close relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested witness whose testimony must be discarded?
  • What constitutes a 'reasonable doubt' for the purpose of extending the benefit of doubt to an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Whether the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies strictly in criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD MASOOD Versus State2025 SCMR 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-10
  murderocular testimonybenefit of doubtdelayed recoveryforensic evidenceabsconsioncriminal appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from a jail petition filed by Muhammad Masood against his conviction and sentence for the murder of his father under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of delayed recoveries of crime weapons, the implication of co-accused acquittal in private complaints, and the legal weight of absconsion. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene, that an inordinate and unpreserved delay of ten months in recovering the weapon renders the forensic report unreliable, and that absconsion and post-mortem reports alone cannot cure inherent defects in the prosecution case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, laying down the principle that ocular accounts riddled with contradictions and uncorroborated by independent evidence cannot sustain a capital conviction, and extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of close relatives can be relied upon when their presence at the crime scene is doubtful and uncorroborated by independent witnesses?
  • Can a positive forensic report regarding a weapon recovered after an inordinate delay without proper preservation serve as reliable corroborative evidence?
  • Does mere absconsion of an accused form a sufficient sole basis for conviction in the absence of credible primary evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a post-mortem report in establishing the identity of the assailant?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD QASIM Versus State2025 SCMR 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-04
  abductionransomanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtwithholding of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants to imprisonment for life under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which convictions were upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether the prosecution established the charges of abduction and payment of ransom beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the testimonies, unexplained delays, withholding of material witnesses, and lack of corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that a prosecution story lacking natural flow, unsupported by corroborative evidence, and fraught with material improvements and omissions cannot sustain a conviction, and that any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a prosecution case based on an improbable and unnatural sequence of events can sustain a criminal conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to produce material witnesses present during the payment of ransom?
  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting an abduction and recording statements to the police render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the foundational facts and corroborative evidence are riddled with contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. AKSAR JAN Versus Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR2025 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-25Read full judgment →
• NEWRASHID Versus State2025 SCMR 868 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NEWRana MUHAMMAD YAMEEN Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL2025 SCMR 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
• NEWMEHBOOB Versus State2025 SCMR 856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-05
  grave and sudden provocationqatl-i-amdreduction of sentencemurder convictioncompromised positioncriminal appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the petitioner's convictions and sentences of imprisonment for life on two counts under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his sister and a relative after finding them in a compromising position, along with a conviction under the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding murder under grave and sudden provocation warranted interference, and whether the conviction ought to fall under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it by converting the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life on two counts to fourteen years, while extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where a double murder is committed spontaneously under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering victims in a compromising position, the case falls within the ambit of Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, requiring a reduced sentence of imprisonment rather than life imprisonment or death.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a murder committed spontaneously under grave and sudden provocation upon finding victims in a compromising position falls under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the Supreme Court convert a conviction under Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the intensity of sudden provocation?
  • Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies when a life sentence for murder is reduced to a term of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD AJMAL Versus Mst. NOOR KHATOON2025 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-03Read full judgment →
• NEWHAMEEDULLAH Versus State2025 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-14
  benefit of doubtsuicide bombingterrorist attackcapital punishmentcriminal jurisprudenceappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for his alleged involvement in a major suicide bombing incident at the Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Wah Cantt. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's presence and apprehension at the crime scene in the manner claimed, noting significant contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained gaps regarding the handling and defusing of the explosive jacket, failure to prove official duty rosters, lack of injuries to the apprehending witnesses despite proximity to the blast, and the absence of forensic analysis from a notified recognized laboratory. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, laying down that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution is bound to prove the guilt of an accused beyond any reasonable doubt in heinous criminal cases?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt as a right?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to present unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence regarding the apprehension of the accused and recovery of incriminating material?
  • Is an expert opinion from a notified recognized laboratory essential for establishing the nature of explosives in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ISRAR Versus JEHANZEB2025 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed MUHAMMAD ALI JAFERI Versus State2025 SCMR 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-21
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecyber crimemarital disputerule and exceptionSection 497 CrPCblackmailingArticle 185(3)
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arose from the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner by the Lahore High Court in a cybercrime case involving allegations of leaking private images following a marital dispute. The complainant alleged that the petitioner hacked her Gmail ID and shared private photographs on social media to blackmail and intimidate her. The petitioner, a medical professional with no prior criminal record, contended that the allegations stemmed from marital discord and that he had been incarcerated for over three months. The Supreme Court observed that the alleged offences carried maximum punishments of three and five years of imprisonment, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Reaffirming the principle that grant of bail in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause is the rule and refusal is an exception, and finding no exceptional circumstances to deny bail, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, granted post-arrest bail, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted as a rule when the alleged offences fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether serious allegations arising out of a private marital dispute justify the denial of post-arrest bail in the absence of exceptional circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWPROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector/ District Officer (Rev), Lahore Versus Malik ABDUL LATIF AMAR2025 SCMR 830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• NEWAHMED OWAIS PEERZADA, CHIEF COMMISSIONER (RTD) FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE PRIME MINISTER, PRIME MINISTER'S SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD2025 SCMR 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD AZAM Versus State2025 SCMR 810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-03
  abductionrapebenefit of the doubtwithholding of evidenceadverse inferencedelayed FIRcriminal appealacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant under sections 365-B, 376, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for abduction, rape, and theft, which convictions were partly modified by the High Court by setting aside the theft conviction while upholding the rest. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the delayed FIR, non-production of material witnesses, doubtful recovery of the victim, and the sufficiency of medical and chemical evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious improbabilities, unexplained delays, and withholding of crucial ocular and corroborative evidence, thereby creating reasonable doubts. The Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case through cogent and confidence-inspiring evidence, and even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained and prolonged delay in reporting an abduction case casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine material family witnesses present during the incident attract an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape in the absence of unimpeachable corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime?
  • How many circumstances creating uncertainty are required for an accused to become entitled to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWSHABEER ALI Versus State2025 SCMR 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-07
  death sentence commutationframing of chargefair trialunborn child murdermitigating circumstancesunproven motivecriminal procedureproportionality of sentence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court maintaining the appellant's conviction and death sentences under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for triple murder (including an unborn child), alongside other offences. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to frame a charge for the murder of the unborn child and the omission to confront the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated that part of the trial, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted the commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that omitting to frame a charge for a distinct offence is a fatal illegality that cannot be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction regarding the unborn child. Furthermore, the Court held that lack of premeditation and unproven motive serve as mitigating factors justifying the commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment. The key principles established relate to the mandatory nature of framing charges for distinct offences under the right to a fair trial and the proportionality of sentencing in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to frame a charge for a distinct offence vitiate the trial in respect of that offence?
  • Can an omission to frame a charge be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are lack of premeditation and unproven motive considered valid mitigating circumstances for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the failure to properly confront an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a distinct accusation violate the right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad Versus MUHAMMAD ATIQ-UR-REHMAN2025 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-05Read full judgment →
• NEWAl-Haaj Malik MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus JAVED AKHTAR2025 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-19
  Illegal Dispossession Actco-ownershipconstructive possessionpartition proceedingsacquittalleave to appealproperty dispute
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had unlawfully occupied a plot of land he had purchased. The core legal question was whether the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is applicable to disputes between co-owners of property where no formal partition has occurred. The Supreme Court held that the Act is not applicable in such circumstances. The Court reasoned that a co-owner is deemed to be in constructive possession of the entire joint holding, and therefore, one co-owner cannot allege forcible dispossession by another without first establishing exclusive possession through formal partition proceedings. The Court affirmed that the Act requires clear evidence of unlawful dispossession, which cannot be established when the parties hold an indivisible interest in the property. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal, and maintained the respondents' acquittal, noting that the parties' civil remedies remain available in the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 apply to disputes between co-owners of property?
  • Can a co-owner claim illegal dispossession against another co-owner without formal partition?
  • What is the standard for overturning an acquittal in an appellate court?
  • Is a co-owner considered to be in constructive possession of the entire joint holding?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWTARIQ MEHMOOD Versus State2025 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-24
  criminal appealdeath sentencejudicial confessionbenefit of the doubtmotiveweapon recoverymurderappraisal of evidence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Tariq Mehmood, for the murder of two brothers under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of an unseen occurrence with an unknown initial perpetrator, the legality and procedural compliance of a judicial confession, the validity of weapon recovery and forensic matching, and the establishment of motive. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court noted significant procedural flaws in recording the confession, major contradictions and hearsay elements in eyewitness testimonies, simultaneous dispatch of crime empties and the weapon to the FSL contrary to law, and a complete failure by the prosecution to establish any motive. The Court held that multiple serious loopholes and doubts permeated the prosecution's case. Setting aside the lower courts' judgments, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that once a single loophole or lacuna is observed in a prosecution case, the benefit of such doubt must automatically be extended in favor of the accused, resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a confessional statement recorded in a cyclostyled printed form without following statutory codal formalities can be read in evidence?
  • Can a death sentence be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove any motive for the alleged double murder?
  • Does the simultaneous dispatch of crime empties and the recovered weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the recovery?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when material prosecution witnesses contradict recovery memos and give hearsay depositions?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWTANVIR HUSSAIN Versus State2025 SCMR 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
• NEWZARIN KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, LAHORE2025 SCMR 773 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-03Read full judgment →
• NEWABDUL SHAKOOR (deceased) Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF (deceased)2025 SCMR 770 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State2025 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-20
  murder convictiondeath sentenceconfession to policeFIR as evidencecircumstantial evidencerecovery proceedingsadmissibility of evidenceappreciation of evidencemedical evidencefalse implication
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The Supreme Court heard a jail petition against the conviction and death sentence of Muhammad Ramzan for the murder of his wife, Mst. Ameen Bibi alias Yasmeen, under Section 302(b) P.P.C. The petitioner's conviction was based primarily on an FIR, allegedly recorded on his report, which the trial court and High Court treated as a confession, and the recovery of the deceased's body on his alleged pointation. The core legal questions revolved around the admissibility of the FIR as evidence, its evidentiary value without proof by its maker, and the reliability of the recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court held that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence unless proved by its maker and subjected to cross-examination. The Court also found the recovery of the dead body lacked independent corroboration and drew an adverse inference for non-production of key witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, allowing the appeal and ordering the petitioner's release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a confession made to a police officer be proved as evidence against an accused person?
  • Is a First Information Report (FIR) a substantive piece of evidence against an accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a recovery memo if no private witness from the locality is associated?
  • Can medical evidence alone be sufficient to prove the identity of an assailant in a murder case?
  • When can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for not producing a witness?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus TECHNO INTERNATIONAL2025 SCMR 756 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• NEWCHAIRMAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PAKISTAN LAHORE Versus Haji ABDUL REHMAN2025 SCMR 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• NEWIMTIAZ NAEEM Versus State2025 SCMR 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25
  voice recognition evidenceretracted confessionbeyond reasonable doubtcapital punishmentcorroborative evidencedue processjail petitionkidnapping for ransom
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This jail petition challenged the conviction of the petitioners for the kidnapping and murder of a minor. The core legal question concerned whether a conviction could be sustained based solely on voice recognition evidence and a retracted confession, absent independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that voice recognition, particularly in high-stakes scenarios, is inherently unreliable without standardized scientific frameworks or forensic validation. Furthermore, a retracted confession, especially when it stands as the sole basis for conviction and lacks corroborative evidence, is insufficient to support a capital charge. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, particularly those involving capital punishment, the evidence must be unequivocal and incontrovertible. Any doubt must weigh in favour of the accused to uphold the principles of due process and fair trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, allowing the appeal and ordering the immediate release of the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offence be sustained solely on the basis of voice recognition evidence without forensic validation?
  • Is a retracted confession sufficient to support a conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to provide corroborative evidence in a murder case entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMURAD KHAN Versus Mst. HUMAIRA QAYYUM2025 SCMR 739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD EHSAN SHAH Versus State2025 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-26
  murdercircumstantial evidencemedical evidenceburden of proofadverse presumptionsuicidebenefit of doubtacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial and medical evidence, as the complainant was not an eye-witness and based the crime report on suspicion. The petitioner raised a plea of suicide. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's failure to explain the circumstances of his wife's death under the same roof could shift the burden of proof or trigger an adverse presumption under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and whether the medical evidence supported a homicide. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's silence or failure to explain does not give rise to an adverse presumption under Article 121, and the prosecution must prove its case on its own strength. The Court noted that the medical evidence strongly indicated suicide (asphyxia by hanging) rather than homicide, and that medical evidence is merely corroborative and cannot identify the assailant. Finding reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to explain an occurrence taking place under his roof give rise to an adverse presumption under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can medical evidence identify the assailant in the absence of reliable ocular evidence?
  • Is the prosecution absolved of its burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt if the accused's plea of suicide is rejected?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE Versus EAGLE CABLES (Pvt.) LTD., LAHORE2025 SCMR 728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-16Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO PESHAWAR Versus FLYING KRAFT PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, CHARSADDA2025 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ABID HUSSAIN Versus State2025 SCMR 721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-27
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesrecovery video recordingprivate witnessesstandard of proofcontrol of narcotic substances
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his post-arrest bail application by the Lahore High Court in a case involving the alleged recovery of 1100 grams of heroin under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the failure of the police to associate private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and their failure to video-record the recovery using modern devices pursuant to Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, warranted the grant of post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that in cases carrying stringent punishments, the prosecution must present reliable evidence, and the absence of mandatory independent witnesses and video documentation tilts the case in favor of the accused. The key principle laid down is that adherence to modern evidentiary techniques and procedural safeguards during narcotics recoveries is crucial to protect against false implication and unjustified incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of police to record a narcotics recovery on video using modern devices entitles the accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the non-association of private witnesses during a narcotics search violate procedural safeguards and weaken the prosecution case at the bail stage?
  • What is the standard of proof required for offences carrying stringent punishments under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (SPECIAL ZONE FOR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS) REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, ISLAMABAD Versus KHUDADAD HEIGHTS, ISLAMABAD2025 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD NASIR ISMAIL Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Lahore2025 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State2025 SCMR 704 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17
  narcotics controlchain of custodybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealforensic analysisrecovery of charasacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition arises from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1400 grams of charas, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established an unbroken, safe, and unimpeachable chain of custody for the recovered contraband from the place of recovery to the forensic laboratory. The Supreme Court held that contradictions in the testimonies regarding the deposit of case property and discrepancies in the physical description of the recovered substance between oral evidence and the chemical report compromised the integrity of the chain of custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that any break or doubt in the chain of custody or safe transmission of narcotics to the forensic laboratory vitiates the chemical examiner's report and entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of contraband from the place of recovery to the forensic laboratory render the chemical examiner's report unreliable?
  • Whether material discrepancies between oral testimony and the chemical report regarding the physical characteristics of the seized substance entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is the prosecution duty-bound to establish an unbroken and unimpeachable chain of custody in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWASIF MASIH Versus State2025 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-12
  abductionrapezina with consentDNA evidenceappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the petitioners for abduction and rape. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the charges of forcible abduction and rape, or if the evidence indicated consensual intercourse. The Court held that the prosecution's case was unreliable due to the unnatural conduct of witnesses who failed to raise an alarm during the alleged abduction, and the abductee’s failure to report the alleged crimes during multiple appearances before a Magistrate. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions for abduction and rape. Based on DNA evidence, the Court convicted one petitioner under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for zina with consent, while acquitting the others. The key principle laid down is that witness testimony lacking natural conduct and the failure to report alleged offenses at the earliest opportunity undermine the prosecution's case. Furthermore, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense without being formally charged and provided an opportunity to defend themselves.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an alleged abductee to report a crime during multiple appearances before a Magistrate cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted of zina with consent if they were not originally charged with that specific offense?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of witnesses in failing to raise an alarm during an alleged abduction render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is DNA evidence sufficient to establish the offense of zina with consent in the absence of proof of forcible abduction or rape?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWZAFAR IQBAL Versus Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH2025 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• NEWBASHIR AHMAD Versus DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS), FBR, PESHAWAR2025 SCMR 684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• NEWCHAWALA FOOTWEAR, LAHORE Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE2025 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ASIF Versus AMJAD IQBAL2025 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD NASIR BUTT Versus State2025 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-09Read full judgment →
• NEWGOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Additional Chief Secretary Development, P&D Department, Quetta Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR2025 SCMR 656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ADNAN Versus SALAH-UD-DIN2025 SCMR 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• NEWPAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Chairman Pakistan Railways, Islamabad Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN2025 SCMR 646 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-11Read full judgment →
• NEWUFAID GUL Versus Mst. FARKHANDA AYUB KHAN2025 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• NEWABDUL SAMAD Versus State2025 SCMR 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-24
  criminal petitionexplosive substancesanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtillegal detentionplanting of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal petition, converted into an appeal, arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the defense plea and supporting documentary evidence demonstrating prior illegal detention and planting of evidence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court judgments, holding that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious doubts regarding the time and manner of arrest, lack of independent corroboration, and corroborative newspaper evidence produced by the defense. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused must be extended to him as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind must be extended to the accused as a matter of right?
  • Does the production of a contemporary newspaper report supporting the accused's plea of prior illegal arrest raise a serious doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to associate independent witnesses or record vehicle details during an alleged chance recovery of explosives?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWAAMIR AKBAR Versus ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR2025 SCMR 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-04Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD SAEED Versus State2025 SCMR 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-02-03
  pre-arrest bailleave to appealfurther inquirycross-versionrecovery of weaponbail petition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner-complainant sought leave to appeal against the order of the Islamabad High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent-accused in a case registered under Sections 324 and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court was justified in granting pre-arrest bail considering the lack of recovery of a crime empty, the completion of recovery of the weapon, and the existence of a cross-version pointing towards further inquiry, as well as whether the High Court could entertain a bail petition after a second petition was deemed not competent by the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's assessment that the case called for further inquiry was supported by the record and that the dismissal of a prior petition by the Sessions Court did not bar the High Court from independently assessing the case. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the prosecution fails to present sufficient incriminating material and the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
  • Does the dismissal of a second bail petition for non-competency by the Sessions Court preclude the High Court from independently entertaining and granting a bail petition?
  • Whether the absence of a crime empty from the place of occurrence is a relevant consideration for assessing a bail plea?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD ASIM Versus Dr. ABDUL HAMID JAN2025 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-16Read full judgment →
• NEWCHAIRMAN, NADRA, NADRA HEADQUARTER, ISLAMABAD Versus ABDUL MAJEED2025 SCMR 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed ALI HUSSAIN Versus SENIOR MEMBER/MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE Muhammad Umer Riaz , Mohsin Mumtaz2025 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-31Read full judgment →
• NEWMATLOOB Versus TAJ DIN (deceased)2025 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-15Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD MANSAB Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF2025 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
• NEWMir HAMMAL KHAN Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Islamabad2025 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• NEWMst. ANITA ANAM Versus GENERAL PUBLIC2025 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
• NEWHASHIM KHAN Versus Mst. MUSARAT BEGUM2025 SCMR 564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-16Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD EJAZ Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HAFIZABAD2025 SCMR 558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• NEWSIKANDAR ALI alias Bhola Versus State2025 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-13
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurderstrangulationexculpatory confessionunnatural conductcriminal appealacquittal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from a criminal petition converted into an appeal, wherein the petitioner, Sikandar Ali alias Bhola, was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Asif through strangulation, which conviction was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including an unmentioned delayed motive, unnatural conduct of an eyewitness, an exculpatory judicial confession of a co-accused, and inconsequential recoveries—was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, and that multiple glaring doubts permeated the case. The Court laid down the principle that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be interconnected to form a continuous chain from the dead body to the accused without any missing links, and that a single reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal by way of benefit of the doubt. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the judgments of the courts below were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an exculpatory judicial confession of a co-accused can be used against a non-confessing accused?
  • What is the standard required for circumstantial evidence to form a continuous chain touching the dead body and the neck of the accused?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of an eyewitness at the time of the occurrence render their testimony unreliable?
  • Whether the failure to mention a motive in a delayed FIR renders the prosecution's case regarding motive an afterthought?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWUMAR GUL Versus Dr. HAFIZA AKHTAR2025 SCMR 544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
• NEWKAUSAR RANA RESOURCES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Versus QATAR LUBRICANTS COMPANY W.L.L. (QALCO)2025 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• NEWSUBHA SADIQ Versus State2025 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-04-22
  criminal appealtest identification paradebenefit of doubtidentification evidenceappreciation of evidenceconvictionprocedural infirmities
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arose from a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the High Court's judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the identification of the accused through a test identification parade and witness testimony. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, setting aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitting the petitioner by extending the benefit of doubt. The Court emphasized that a test identification parade is a corroborative, not mandatory, piece of evidence that must be conducted with strict adherence to procedural fairness. It laid down that courts must evaluate identification evidence by analyzing both system variables—such as the proper conduct of the parade, including the ratio of dummies and the Magistrate's supervision—and estimator variables, which involve the witness's capacity to identify the accused under specific circumstances. Because the identification proceedings in this case were fraught with serious infirmities and lacked credibility, the conviction could not be maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Is a test identification parade a mandatory requirement for proving the identity of an accused in a criminal case?
  • What are the system variables and estimator variables that a court must consider when evaluating identification evidence?
  • Does the failure to follow established guidelines during a test identification parade render the identification evidence unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a test identification parade that lacks procedural safeguards?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWZEESHAN PERVEZ (Late) Versus MUHAMMAD NASIR2025 SCMR 495 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• NEWSECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE Versus ALI AHMAD KHAN2025 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-23Read full judgment →
• NEWDEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB COOPERATIVES DEPARTMENT LAHORE2025 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
• NEWALI MADAD JATTAK Versus Mir MUHAMMAD USMAN PIRKANI2025 SCMR 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus MEMBER JUDICIAL-IV, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE2025 SCMR 459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• NEWTARIQ KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (NORTH) FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD2025 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
• NEWMUHAMMAD AKHTAR Versus State2025 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-05-24
  criminal appealreasonable doubtocular testimonyforensic analysisadverse presumptionacquittalmurder
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning convictions for murder and related offences. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant evidentiary gaps and contradictions. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from critical infirmities, including the failure to send recovered weapons for forensic analysis, the absence of independent corroboration for ocular testimony, and material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the court drew an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, due to the non-production of key witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appellant's appeal, acquitted him of all charges, and dismissed the complainant's appeals against the acquittal of co-accused and for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to send recovered weapons for forensic analysis create a reasonable doubt in the case?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce material witnesses at trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony of an alleged eye-witness is contradicted by medical evidence and lacks independent corroboration?
  • Is the benefit of reasonable doubt mandatory when prosecution witnesses make dishonest improvements in their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWGOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore Versus ZAKA ULLAH2025 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-20Read full judgment →
• NEWAMNA NAZ Versus State2025 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-07
  post-arrest bailcustoms smugglingprohibitory clausebail for womencustodial interrogationjudicial discretion
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by a female petitioner accused of smuggling 26 foreign-made iPhones through the green channel at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore, without valid import documentation. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in denying bail based primarily on the severity of the sentence prescribed for the alleged offences under the Customs Act, 1969, without adequately considering the petitioner's status as a woman under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail. The Court held that the lower courts failed to properly exercise their discretion by focusing solely on the prohibitory clause rather than the petitioner's gender, lack of criminal history, and the fact that custodial interrogation was no longer required. The key principle laid down is that while an offence may fall within the prohibitory clause, courts must independently evaluate bail applications for women by considering individual circumstances, such as background and the necessity of continued detention, rather than relying exclusively on the prescribed sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle a female accused to bail?
  • Should a court consider the gender of an accused when evaluating a bail application under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the completion of custodial interrogation a relevant factor in determining whether to grant post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• NEWZAKIRULLAH Versus MUHAMMAD REHMAN2025 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• NEWUBAIDULLAH Versus Haji ATTA MUHAMMAD BANGULZAI2025 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• NEWSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus NINA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI2025 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-19Read full judgment →
• NEWGOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Elementary and Secondary, Education Department, Peshawar Versus AURANGZEB (EX-PRIMARY SCHOOL HEAD TEACHER) GPS WANNA KHEL TEHSIL TAKHTBHAI DISTRICT MARDAN2025 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-04Read full judgment →
• NEWFARYAL ARIF LATIF Versus ARIF LATIF2025 SCMR 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• NEWSHER AYAZ KHAN alias SHERAZ KHANA Versus GUL NAJEEB KHAN2025 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-09Read full judgment →
• NEWCHAIRMAN PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORIES, POF BOARD, WAH CANTT. Versus AKHTAR TANVEER2025 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
• NEWThe GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, through Secretary Energy Department, Quetta Versus MUHAMMAD YASIR2025 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-04Read full judgment →
• NEWSyed ALI AHMED SHAH Versus Syed SHOUKAT HUSSAIN SHAH2025 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
• NEWSADAQAT ALI Versus Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR2025 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-19Read full judgment →
• NEWThe DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus BABAR ALI SOLANGI2025 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-10-15Read full judgment →
• NEWCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III RTO, RAWALPINDI Versus SARWAQ TRADERS, RAWALPINDI2025 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →