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.

• JAN MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1412 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-04-13
  criminal appealmurderrobberycircumstantial evidenceexamination of accusedremandaudi alteram partemdefective trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The Federal Shariat Court heard a criminal appeal and a revision petition arising from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge III, Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 302(b) of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance for murder and robbery. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the deceased's taxi from a workshop where the appellant had allegedly brought it for repairs, and the recovery of the vehicle's papers and a weapon from the appellant's house. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated due to enmity. The Court observed that vital incriminating circumstances, particularly the testimony of the workshop owner regarding the appellant's possession and delivery of the vehicle, were never put to the appellant during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the proper examination of an accused is a mandatory requirement based on the principle of audi alteram partem, the Court ruled that the omission to confront the appellant with these vital pieces of evidence prejudiced his defense and vitiated the trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh trial from the stage of recording the accused's statement under Section 342.

  Questions settled

  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory or discretionary?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to put vital incriminating circumstances to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the omission to question an accused on specific incriminating evidence form a valid ground for setting aside a conviction and remanding the case for a fresh trial?
  Read full judgment →
• GUL BAHAR Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1394 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-04-12
  Hudood OrdinanceTazkiya-tush-ShuhudHadd punishmentrobberyalteration of convictionidentification paradeFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentencing him to amputation of limbs, alongside a criminal reference for sentence confirmation. The core legal question was whether the sentence of Hadd could be sustained without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Tazkiya-tush-Shuhud. The Federal Shariat Court held that since the mandatory requirements of Tazkiya-tush-Shuhud under section 7 of the Ordinance were not fulfilled, the Hadd punishment could not be inflicted, and the offense instead constituted simple robbery under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Consequently, the Court set aside the Hadd punishment, altered the conviction to section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced the appellant to five years' rigorous imprisonment, while dismissing the criminal reference for confirmation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of Hadd be inflicted under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Tazkiya-tush-Shuhud?
  • Whether failure to satisfy the conditions for Hadd warrants the alteration of conviction to Tazir under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • What is the effect of unfulfilled Tazkiya-tush-Shuhud on a sentence of amputation awarded by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAJIDA alias SHAZIA and another Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1379 · Federal Shariat Court
  Offence of Zinahome privacyviolation of privacyfalse implicationchemical examiner reportFederal Shariat Courtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, convicting the appellants under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. The core legal questions involved the legality of the house trespass and violation of home privacy by private informants, the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, and whether the medical and chemical examiner reports substantiated the charge of Zina. The Federal Shariat Court held that the conviction was unsustainable as the chemical examiner report was entirely negative for semen and the prosecution case rested on concocted evidence by habitual complainants who unlawfully breached the sanctity of the appellants' home. The court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and discharged a suo motu notice against the intruders upon their submission of unqualified apologies and surety bonds for good behavior. The key principle laid down is that the privacy of a home is inviolable under Islamic law and Article 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and unlawful intrusion by private individuals to fabricate criminal cases vitiates the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the violation of home privacy by private intruders vitiates a criminal case based on their testimony?
  • Does a negative chemical examiner report regarding vaginal swabs warrant the acquittal of an accused charged under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance?
  • Can private informants who trespass into a residence to fabricate false cases be proceeded against under suo motu revisional powers?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVAID Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1292 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-01-26
  murder referencedeath sentencerelated witnesseseyewitness testimonymotivebenefit of the doubtappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of connected criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment convicting Muhammad Javaid under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and interested eye-witnesses, the establishment of motive, the presence of mitigating circumstances for capital punishment, and the sustainability of co-accused acquittals. The Federal Shariat Court held that the testimony of natural and related eye-witnesses, when consistent and unshaken under cross-examination, is sufficient to base a conviction without independent corroboration, and that prompt lodging of the FIR alongside medical evidence fully supports the prosecution's case. The court maintained the death sentence for murder due to the brutal nature of the crime and lack of mitigating circumstances, but set aside the Zina conviction, extending the benefit of the doubt. The key legal principles laid down are that the mere relationship of a witness to a victim does not discredit their testimony if it remains trustworthy, and that non-recovery of crime empties is not fatal to the prosecution when supported by ocular and medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested eye-witnesses can form the sole basis for a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the non-recovery of a crime empty from the scene of a firearm incident render the prosecution's ocular account doubtful?
  • Whether the benefit of the doubt should be extended regarding a Zina charge when the medical examination is not specific as to the exact date of the act?
  • On what grounds can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal recorded by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• PATHAN Versus NASEER MUHAMMAD2004 PCRLJ 1257 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-12-05
  sodomyunnatural lustcriminal appealmedical evidencecorroborationwrongful confinementkidnapping
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants by the trial court under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged kidnapping and wrongful confinement of the complainant for unnatural lust. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charges of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and the underlying act of sodomy. Upon review, the Federal Shariat Court found that while the evidence of the complainant, corroborated by medical testimony and the Chemical Examiner's report, conclusively proved the commission of sodomy, the prosecution failed to establish the charges of kidnapping or wrongful confinement. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court substituted the conviction with one under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone by the appellants, plus a fine. The judgment affirms that medical and forensic evidence can corroborate testimony to prove sodomy, even if other charges fail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the charges of kidnapping and wrongful confinement are not proven?
  • Is medical evidence and a Chemical Examiner's report sufficient to corroborate a complainant's testimony regarding sodomy?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to alter a conviction to a different section of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the evidence presented?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. WASEEM ANSARI Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1231 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-03-05
  Zina-bil-Jabrrape convictiondelayed FIRcorroborative evidencefalse implicationacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, where the appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment for alleged rape. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the charge of Zina-bil-Jabr beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the 47-day delay in lodging the FIR and the complainant's admitted motive of a failed marriage. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. The Court observed that the delay in the FIR, the lack of corroborative evidence, the medical report indicating the complainant was accustomed to sexual intercourse, and the credible conclusion by the Investigating Officer that the case was a fabrication born of a failed marriage proposal rendered the conviction unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that in the absence of strong corroborative evidence, the uncorroborated testimony of a complainant in a Zina case, especially when motivated by personal grievances, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR?
  • Does a motive of failed marriage on the part of the complainant constitute a valid ground to suspect the veracity of a rape allegation?
  • Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the innocence of an accused admissible and entitled to consideration by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1199 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-03-18
  murderabductionlast-seen evidencecircumstantial evidencedeath penalty commutationbenefit of doubtjoint confessioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of two appellants for the abduction and murder of a sixteen-year-old girl. The trial court had sentenced the primary appellant to death and the co-appellant to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of joint confessions, the sufficiency of last-seen evidence, and the appropriate sentencing in cases involving multiple unknown accomplices. The Federal Shariat Court held that while the conviction of the primary appellant was supported by motive, medical evidence of ante-mortem injury, and the last-seen doctrine, the conviction of the co-appellant was unsustainable due to a lack of direct evidence and motive. Consequently, the court acquitted the co-appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the primary appellant, the court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, reasoning that where the specific contribution of the accused versus his unknown accomplices in the murder remains ambiguous, the extreme penalty is not warranted. The judgment affirms that joint confessions are legally unsafe and that last-seen evidence, absent an explanation from the accused, creates a strong presumption of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint confession or joint pointation by multiple accused legally admissible or reliable?
  • Does the last-seen doctrine shift the burden to the accused to explain the death of the deceased?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the specific role of the accused in a group crime remains unclear?
  • Is the association of a minor co-accused in an abduction sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without direct evidence of participation?
  Read full judgment →
• SAJIDA PARVEEN Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another2004 PCRLJ 1117 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-03-24
  zina-bil-jabrincestappeal against acquittalsolitary testimony of prosecutrixnon-reading of evidencemedico-legal reporthudood ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondent No.1 by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, of the charge of Zina under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, allegedly committed against his own daughter over an extended period. The core legal questions involve whether the trial court misread and non-read material evidence, improperly discarded the solitary statement of the prosecutrix and corroborative statements of family members as hearsay, and whether sufficient grounds existed to interfere with an acquittal judgment. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court's judgment was perverse, suffered from gross non-reading of evidence, and resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. The court established that a daughter's testimony in incest and rape cases can form the basis of a conviction if confidence-inspiring and corroborated by surrounding circumstances such as suicide attempts and expert medical evidence. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the acquittal was set aside, and the respondent was convicted and sentenced under the relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal when it is found to be perverse and the result of gross non-reading of material evidence?
  • Can the solitary statement of a prosecutrix form the basis of a conviction in a charge of Zina-bil-Jabr without independent corroboration?
  • Whether statements made by family members regarding disclosures of sexual assault made by the victim qualify as inadmissible hearsay evidence?
  • Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report vitiate a prosecution case of rape where the medical examination and other circumstances sufficiently prove the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1102 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-01-14
  circumstantial evidenceqatl-e-amdrobberyballistic expert reportdishonest misappropriationta'zirqisas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Federal Shariat Court challenged the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant by the Sessions Judge under Sections 302(c) and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and misappropriation following the snatching of a motorcycle. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction for murder can be legally sustained exclusively on circumstantial evidence; whether the accused could only be held liable for retaining stolen property under Sections 411 or 412 of the Penal Code; and whether conviction under Section 302(c) was legally applicable where the accused was neither a minor, insane, nor related to the deceased within Section 306. The Court held that an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence—witnesses observing the accused fleeing on the robbed vehicle, arrest after an armed encounter, and matching ballistic reports—conclusively proved guilt. It further held that Section 302(c) applies only to offenders exempt from Qisas under Section 306, and that snatching property during murder constitutes robbery, not dishonest misappropriation. Consequently, the Court altered the convictions to Section 302(b) and Section 392 of the Penal Code.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be exclusively grounded on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony?
  • When does an offense of killing and taking a victim's property constitute robbery under Section 392 rather than dishonest misappropriation under Section 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what specific circumstances is Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable as opposed to Section 302(b)?
  • Can an accused caught immediately fleeing on robbed property after a fatal shooting be convicted only for receiving stolen property under Section 411 or 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus Mst. SHAGUFTA AHMAD and 2 others2004 PCRLJ 1071 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-03-18
  revision petitionjactitation of marriagezinaacquittal at any stagerestitution of conjugal rightsfamily court decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under Article 203(DD) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which accepted the respondents' application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and acquitted them of charges under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The complainant alleged that the respondent lady committed zina by cohabiting with her husband while civil litigation regarding her marital status was pending. The respondent had successfully obtained a decree for jactitation of marriage against the complainant's brother, which was upheld up to the High Court. The Federal Shariat Court observed that a decree for jactitation of marriage declares that no marriage ever existed ab initio, unlike a dissolution of marriage. Consequently, her marriage with her husband was legally unassailable. The Court held that under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a trial court has the power to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction, and dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court competently acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before recording prosecution evidence if the charge is groundless?
  • What is the legal distinction between a suit for dissolution of marriage and a suit for jactitation of marriage regarding the existence of a valid marriage?
  • Does a decree for jactitation of marriage operate retrospectively to declare that no marriage ever existed between the parties ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• JAVED IQBAL Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 105 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-07-24
  juvenile justiceage determinationmedical board reportbirth certificatejurisdictiononus of proofcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing trial for murder and Zina, challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court, claiming minority status under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He relied on a birth certificate to assert he was under 18 years of age. The trial court, doubting the authenticity of the birth certificate due to alleged tampering and contradictions with other documents, ordered a medical examination. The Medical Board assessed the petitioner as a major. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly determined the petitioner's age and properly exercised its jurisdiction. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the trial court acted within its authority under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The court affirmed that when the genuineness of a birth certificate is disputed, the trial court is mandated to conduct an inquiry, which must include a medical report. The principle established is that the onus of proving minority to exclude the jurisdiction of ordinary courts lies on the accused, and where documentary evidence is contested, a medical report is a critical, mandatory component of the age determination process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving minority status to exclude the jurisdiction of an ordinary court lie on the accused?
  • Is a medical report a mandatory requirement under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, when the age of an accused is disputed?
  • Can a trial court disregard a birth certificate if its genuineness is challenged and other evidence suggests the accused is a major?
  Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR alias KUKKU and 2 others Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1039 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-12-18
  zina-bil-jabrabductionprivate complaintcancellation of FIRcounterblast caseqazfmedical evidencesolitary statement of victimquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals and a criminal revision arising from a common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The core legal question involved whether the conviction of the appellants under sections 10(3) and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 343 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sustainable based on the evidence on record, and whether the counter-case under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979 was sustainable. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge of abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr against the principal accused through the consistent and reliable testimony of the victim corroborated by medical evidence, while the police officials and co-accused were rightly given the benefit of the doubt regarding allegations of custodial rape. The Court laid down that a conviction for rape can be sustained on the solitary statement of the victim if found truthful and confidence-inspiring, and that criminal proceedings initiated maliciously as a counterblast to frustrate genuine prosecution constitute an abuse of the process of the court and are liable to be quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for rape can be based on the solitary statement of the victim?
  • Can criminal proceedings instituted maliciously as a counterblast to stifle genuine prosecution be quashed by the court?
  • Does the non-production of a chemical examiner report prove fatal to a prosecution case where direct ocular and medical evidence is available?
  Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MASIH Versus THE STATE2004 PCRLJ 1017 · Federal Shariat Court · 2004-01-12
  zinaconversion to islamdissolution of marriagechristian marriagehudood ordinancecriminal appealannulment of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two jail criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the appellants, Tariq Masih and Mst. Nagina Masih, were convicted and sentenced under Section 16 and Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for illicit intercourse, on the premise that their marriage subsisted despite conversion. The core legal question was whether the marriage of Christian spouses stands annulled upon their conversion to Islam, rendering subsequent marriage valid and precluding conviction under the Hudood laws. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants. The court held that upon conversion to Islam by both spouses, the prior Christian marriage stands ipso facto annulled, as faith is personal and no complex rituals are required for conversion. Consequently, the female appellant was legally free to contract a valid marriage with the male appellant under Islamic law, negating any charge of Zina.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the marriage between Christian spouses stands ipso facto annulled upon their conversion to Islam?
  • Does a marriage between Christian spouses require formal dissolution through a court of law when both parties have embraced Islam?
  • Can a conviction for Zina be sustained under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 when the accused couple validly contracted marriage after converting to Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• ABBAS Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 624 · Federal Shariat Court · 2002-05-30
  revision petitionre-summoning of witnesscorrection of statementcriminal procedureprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, allowing the re-summoning of a prosecution witness to correct an inadvertent mistake regarding the time of the occurrence stated during her testimony. The core legal question concerns whether a witness can be recalled and re-examined to correct a mistake in their deposition at trial. The Federal Shariat Court held that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act allowing a witness to be recalled merely to correct a mistake made while appearing at trial, as doing so would grant an improper licence to the prosecution to alter testimony to the detriment of the accused. The court laid down the principle that while a witness may be recalled if they were not examined on a material issue, they cannot be re-summoned simply to rectify or amend a previously recorded statement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness be recalled for examination to correct a mistake made while appearing at trial?
  • Does the Criminal Procedure Code permit re-summoning a witness to rectify an inadvertent error in their testimony?
  • Under what circumstances may a witness be legally re-called during a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR AHMAD Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 557 · Federal Shariat Court · 2002-10-22
  Offence of Zinaabductionco-accused statementcross-examinationFederal Shariat Courtcriminal appealreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 10(2) and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The core legal question revolved around the sustainability of the conviction under section 10(2) based on the co-accused's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without oath or cross-examination, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding abduction under section 16. The Federal Shariat Court held that the statement of a co-accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against a co-accused without being tested on oath or through cross-examination, thereby setting aside the conviction under section 10(2). However, the conviction under section 16 for abduction was maintained based on corroborative eye-witness testimony, while the sentence was suitably reduced. The key principle laid down is that a statement made by a co-accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, cannot constitute legal evidence against another accused unless made on oath and subject to cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of a co-accused recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 can be used as evidence against another accused without oath and cross-examination?
  • Can a conviction under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be sustained in the absence of any direct evidence or testimony regarding the commission of Zina?
  • Whether the conviction for abduction under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is maintainable when corroborated by reliable witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZAR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE2003 PCRLJ 252 · Federal Shariat Court · 2002-11-14
  joint trialmisjoinder of chargesprejudice to accusedplanting of evidencenarcotics offenseremand for retrialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a police officer, for planting narcotics evidence on a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the joint trial of the appellant and the co-accused was legally valid or if it caused prejudice to the defense. The Federal Shariat Court held that the joint trial was improper and prejudicial because the alleged offenses were committed independently, lacking any pre-concerted plan or common intention. The court emphasized that a joint trial is vitiated when it causes serious embarrassment or prejudice to an accused, specifically by depriving them of the valuable right to examine the co-accused as a witness. Finding that the joint procedure prevented a fair trial, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a separate retrial. The key principle laid down is that where the adoption of a joint trial procedure is likely to cause prejudice to the accused, particularly in cases involving independent acts without common design, such a trial is not maintainable and must be set aside to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a joint trial of accused persons for independent offenses without a common plan vitiate the conviction?
  • Is a conviction maintainable if the joint trial procedure causes prejudice to the accused's defense?
  • Can a joint trial be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it results in prejudice to the accused?
  • Does the joint trial of co-accused deprive them of the right to examine each other as witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR Versus KASUAR PARVEEN2003 PCRLJ 1816 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-07-04
  criminal revisionacquittal appealprivate complaintQazfspecial leave to appealmaintainabilityCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an acquittal order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in a private complaint case under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a criminal revision petition remains maintainable against an acquittal order in a private complaint case, or if the complainant is restricted to seeking special leave to appeal. The Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable. Relying on the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court ruled that the remedy against an acquittal in a private complaint case is exclusively a petition for special leave to appeal, and revision is barred. The Court further observed that the petitioner failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure. Additionally, on the merits, the Court found the complaint was motivated by malice to harass the respondent following civil litigation. The principle established is that where the law mandates a specific procedural remedy, no deviation is permissible, and revision petitions against acquittals in private complaints are incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal revision petition maintainable against an acquittal order passed in a private complaint case?
  • Does the amendment by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, bar a complainant from filing a revision petition against an acquittal?
  • Can a complainant seek special leave to appeal against an acquittal order in a case instituted upon a private complaint?
  • Do pleadings in a civil suit constitute substantive evidence in a criminal trial without being confronted during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR Versus HUSNAIN MEHDI2003 PCRLJ 1321 · Federal Shariat Court · 2003-02-17
  private complaintpreliminary inquiryZina-bil-Jabrcourt witnessesremand of casecriminal appealOffence of Zina Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal, dismissing a private complaint filed under sections 10(3) and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sections 166/167, 165/163, 342/348, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully during the preliminary inquiry by prematurely relying on testimonies of court-summoned witnesses and discarding the complainant's evidence without granting full and ample opportunity to examine her scheduled witnesses. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court erred in relying primarily on court-witnesses and failing to properly appraise the statements of the complainant's witnesses. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial judge with directions to record the statements of the remaining scheduled witnesses before proceeding in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that during a preliminary inquiry into a private complaint, especially involving serious allegations against public servants, the complainant must be afforded full and ample opportunity to produce evidence, and court-witnesses should not be substituted prematurely for the complainant's scheduled witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can prematurely rely on court-witnesses during a preliminary inquiry while ignoring the complainant's scheduled witnesses?
  • Does the law require that full and ample opportunity be given to a complainant to prove allegations at the preliminary inquiry stage?
  • When is a court justified in summoning court-witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a private complaint?
  • What is the proper course of action for an appellate court when a trial court fails to properly appraise the preliminary evidence produced by a complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• SYED ALI HAIDER JAFARI Versus MST. SHABANA NAZ2002 PCRLJ 934 · Federal Shariat Court · 2002-01-25
  Qazfimputation of Zinaguardianship applicationpleadings drafted by counselrevision petitionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate judgment maintaining the petitioner's conviction under section 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly using the word 'paramour' in a guardianship application filed against his ex-wife. The core legal question was whether the use of the term 'paramour' in a legal pleading drafted by counsel, without direct proof of imputation of Zina or of the petitioner's personal use and verification of the term, constitutes the offence of Qazf. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the petition, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and acquitted the petitioner. The court held that the mere use of the word 'paramour' in an application drafted by counsel, without confronting the petitioner or establishing a direct imputation of Zina, does not satisfy the statutory definition of Qazf under section 3 of the Ordinance so as to warrant a conviction under section 11.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of the word 'paramour' in a guardianship application drafted by counsel amount to the offence of Qazf under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a client be convicted of Qazf based on offensive terms included in a legal pleading without being confronted with the terms or proving direct imputation of Zina?
  • What constitutes the statutory definition of Qazf under section 3 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SATTAR Versus THE STATE2001 PCRLJ 783 · Federal Shariat Court · 2000-11-03
  narcotics controlcriminal appealinvestigation procedureprejudice to accusedC.I.A. policeindependent witnessessafe dispensation of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, by the trial court. The core legal question concerns the validity of an investigation conducted by the C.I.A. police without specific authorization from the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of the relevant police station, and whether such an investigation, relying exclusively on police subordinates as witnesses, prejudiced the accused. The Federal Shariat Court held that the investigation was procedurally flawed. The Court emphasized that while a police officer may act as both complainant and investigator, this is permissible only if it does not prejudice the accused. In this case, the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of authorization from the S.H.O., and the reliance on a 'one-man show' by the complainant created serious prejudice. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, establishing the principle that investigative practices by the C.I.A. police must strictly adhere to statutory authority and ensure impartiality to avoid causing prejudice to the accused, thereby upholding the principles of safe dispensation of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a C.I.A. police officer conduct an investigation without authorization from the S.H.O. of the relevant police station?
  • Does an investigation conducted solely by police subordinates as witnesses, without independent witnesses, cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Under what circumstances can a police officer act as both the complainant and the investigating officer?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI ALIAS MAMOON Versus THE STATE2000 PCRLJ 774 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-11-23
  robberybenefit of doubthostile witnessidentification paraderecoveryuncorroborated evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, delivered by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, through which they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The core legal question before the appellate court was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt given that the complainant, key mashirs, and recovery witnesses either did not support the prosecution case or were declared hostile, and the trial court itself had found the recovery doubtful. The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that material contradictions, lack of supporting testimony from the complainant, hostile recovery witnesses, and the uncorroborated sole testimony of the investigating officer created insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. The key legal principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to corroborate essential elements of a crime and material witnesses turn hostile, the benefit of the resulting doubt must invariably be extended to the accused, rendering any uncorroborated police testimony unsafe for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated statement of an investigating officer is sufficient to sustain a conviction when recovery witnesses have turned hostile?
  • Does the failure of a complainant to support the first information report create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when material discrepancies and delays mar the prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• KHAN ZAMAN Versus THE STATE2000 PCRLJ 447 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-01-22
  narcotics possessionC.I.A. investigationcognizable offencerecovery proceedingscoram non judicecriminal appealsearch and seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the possession of heroin. The core legal questions concern the jurisdiction of C.I.A. personnel to investigate cognizable offenses and the validity of recovery proceedings conducted without compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the proceedings were vitiated ab initio and coram non judice because C.I.A. staff lack the statutory authority to investigate cognizable offenses, a power reserved for the officer in charge of a police station. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to material discrepancies in evidence, the failure to produce the case property in court, and the lack of independent witnesses for the recovery. The key principle laid down is that investigation of cognizable offenses is strictly limited to authorized police station officers, and recovery proceedings must adhere to statutory search requirements or provide valid justifications for any deviations.

  Questions settled

  • Do C.I.A. personnel have the legal authority to investigate a cognizable offence?
  • Is the testimony of police personnel regarding recovery admissible without compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal consequence of an investigation conducted by an officer lacking jurisdiction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the recovered case property is not produced in court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID Versus STATER1999 PCRLJ 1773 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus THE STATE1998 PCRLJ 638 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
• EHSAN ULLAH Versus STATE1997 PCRLJ 805 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• NUSRAT ALI Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 667 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• HAIDER JAFFARY Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 557 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
• GHULAM QADIR SIYAL Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 554 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 546 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR Versus KAUSAR1997 PCRLJ 543 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
• MST. KHIAL MEENA Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 539 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-01-22Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SATTAR Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1997 PCRLJ 500 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 475 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →
• ZARINA BIBI Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 313 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 307 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• FAIZOO Versus RAEES BAQAR KHAN1997 PCRLJ 225 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-08-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 1689 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
• SAEED AHMAD Versus STATE1997 PCRLJ 1465 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 1381 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
• SIRAJUDDIN Versus HABIB BANK LTD.1997 PCRLJ 1351 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 1331 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 1124 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• QALOO Versus THE STATE1996 PCRLJ 496 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE1996 PCRLJ 1866 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SARWAR Versus THE STATE1996 PCRLJ 1853 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus THE STATE1996 PCRLJ 171 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
• SULTAN SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1995 PCRLJ 847 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE1995 PCRLJ 1751 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus THE STATE1995 PCRLJ 1742 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JABBAR Versus THE STATE1995 PCRLJ 159 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE1995 PCRLJ 157 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus THE STATE1995 PCRLJ 155 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• DAWA KHAN Versus THE STATE1995 PCRLJ 153 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• AHMAD NAWAZ Versus THE STATE1995 PCRLJ 138 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF BANGALI Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 928 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
• AASIA Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 854 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-08-02Read full judgment →
• MST. SAKINA BIBI Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 853 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• HAMEED ULLAH Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 784 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 782 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-01-20Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 733 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-01-04Read full judgment →
• MIRAJ Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 482 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMED Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 443 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• STATE Versus ANWAR BEGUM1994 PCRLJ 441 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• SABIR KHAN Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 438 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• STATE Versus IQBAL BIBI1994 PCRLJ 403 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMAD ALIAS ZAHOORI Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 335 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ ALIAS BADI Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 331 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-08-02Read full judgment →
• SH. MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 327 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• KHIZAR HAYAT Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 322 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-09-30Read full judgment →
• DAUD JAN Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 314 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI BUTT Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 2532 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF BENGALI Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 2518 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 2405 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• AHMAD NAEEM Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 2092 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-07-03Read full judgment →
• JAVED Versus KHALID MAHMOOD1994 PCRLJ 2088 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• PEERAN DITTA ALIAS FALAK SHER Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 2086 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR KHAN Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 206 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• HAJI ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 200 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 1856 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 1849 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• KHALID MAHMOOD Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 1798 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• DAUD SHAH Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 1657 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
• STATE Versus GIN Z,AMAN1994 PCRLJ 1655 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
• MST. AASIA Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 165 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-08-02Read full judgment →
• SAMUEL MASIH Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 1621 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• GHULAM ALI Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 1618 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
• RIAZ Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 1616 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 1613 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• IJAZ AHMAD Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 1609 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• BINYA MEEN NASIR ALIAS PAPOO Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 1475 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-29Read full judgment →
• BIJAR Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 144 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• STATE Versus ABDULLAH1994 PCRLJ 1432 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-03-03Read full judgment →
• STATE Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD1994 PCRLJ 1429 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• ABDUR RAZAQ Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 1390 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
• SAFIA BIBI Versus STATE1994 PCRLJ 1371 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-08-02Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN Versus THE STATE1994 PCRLJ 1286 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE1993 PCRLJ 2185 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
• NASEER AHMAD Versus THE STATE1993 PCRLJ 1880 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
• NASEER AHMAD Versus THE STATE1993 PCRLJ 1860 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus THE STATE1993 PCRLJ 1692 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →