Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus THE STATE1993 PCRLJ 1475 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN KUNDI Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1992 PCRLJ 2416 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-02Read full judgment →
- MST. RUBI AKHTAR Versus THE STATE1992 PCRLJ 2403 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN Versus THE STATE1992 PCRLJ 1944 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1992 PCRLJ 183 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE1992 PCRLJ 1631 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus THE STATE1991 PCRLJ 626 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1991 PCRLJ 579 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-05Read full judgment →
- UMAR HAYAT Versus THE STATE Malik Noor Muhammad Awan , Muhammad Aslam Uns for the State.1991 PCRLJ 484 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-05Read full judgment →
- HAJI KHAN Versus THE STATE1991 PCRLJ 2110 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-08-17Read full judgment →
- NOORUL HAQ Versus THE STATE1991 PCRLJ 1684 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus THE STATE1991 PCRLJ 1528 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN Versus THE STATE Khan Mushtaq Ahmad Khan , Muhammad Aslam Uns for the State.1991 PCRLJ 1512 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus STATE1989 PCRLJ 1703 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus STATE1989 PCRLJ 1161 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FARID Versus STATE1989 PCRLJ 1160 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
- BADSHA KHAN Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 887 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-03-07Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN AND 2 OTHERS Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 873 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NADEEM Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 869 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- MST. FATIMA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL AND 4 OTHERS1988 PCRLJ 864 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD ANJUM Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 861 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDULLAH Versus THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1988 PCRLJ 859 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 758 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- JAHANGIR Versus THE STATE Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi , Pervaiz Alamgir1988 PCRLJ 756 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE Tariq Azam Chaudhry , Khan Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for the State.,S.M. Ghazi1988 PCRLJ 529 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 503 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
- ROBIN Versus THE STATE S. Murtaza Ali Zaidi , M. Rafi Siddiqui1988 PCRLJ 348 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-15Read full judgment →
- WAZIR ALI Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 345 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 343 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE Ali Murtaza Hussain , Agha Imdad Ali1988 PCRLJ 278 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AZIZ Versus THE STATE Muhammad Akmal Salimi , Altaf Muhammad Khan1988 PCRLJ 268 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-12Read full judgment →
- AMIR ALI AND 3 OTHERS Versus THE STATE Khan Zia-ud-Din Khan , S.D. Qureshi1988 PCRLJ 2356 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
- SAFDAR ALI ALIAS SHAFI AND 2 OTHERS Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 2353 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-06-02Read full judgment →
- WASIUDDIN KHAWAR Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 2331 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 2321 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 1970 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus THE STATE Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhry , Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.1988 PCRLJ 1965 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE STATE S. Nadeem Saqlain , Faiz-ur-Rahman1988 PCRLJ 1963 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
- NIGAH SHAH Versus THE STATE Rab Nawaz Noon , Muhammad Aslam Uns1988 PCRLJ 1925 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- ANWAR MASIH Versus THE STATE Inamullah Khan , Saleem Shad1988 PCRLJ 1922 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus THE STATE Sardar Muhammad Ishaque , Makhdoom Abdul Wali1988 PCRLJ 1583 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-09Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL Versus THE STATE Sardar Muhammad Ishaque , Imam Bakhsh1988 PCRLJ 1582 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus THE STATE Sardar Muhammad Ishaque , Imam Bakhsh1988 PCRLJ 1580 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-14Read full judgment →
- FAWAD HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE Muhammad Asif , Abdul Qayyum Sarwar1988 PCRLJ 1578 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-02-29Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR Versus ZAFAR IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS1988 PCRLJ 1570 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-08-03Read full judgment →
- BAYAZEED ALIAS KALI Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 1458 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-12-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 1446 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
- GUL ZAMAN Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 1442 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-06-26Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE Syed Kamal Mufti , M. Iqbal1988 PCRLJ 1204 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
- JAVED Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 1081 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-01-12Read full judgment →
- IMDAD HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1988 PCRLJ 1074 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT ALI ALIAS SALAMAT MASIH Versus STATE1987 PCRLJ 384 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus STATE Muhammad Akbar Cheema , Azmat Dad1987 PCRLJ 346 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM Versus STATE1987 PCRLJ 284 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →
- UCHECHUKWU VENATIUS Versus STATE S. M. Sayedain , Jalal ud Din Baloch1987 PCRLJ 2492 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM1987 PCrLJ 2179 · Federal Shariat Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus STATE1987 PCRLJ 134 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD GULZAR Versus STATE1987 PCRLJ 125 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus STATE1987 PCRLJ 122 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem , Muhammad Ashraf Khan1987 PCRLJ 118 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- HAYATULLAH Versus THE STATE1986 PCRLJ 2589 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1986 PCRLJ 2502 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus THE STATE1986 PCRLJ 2496 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE Muhammad Yamin , Nemo1986 PCRLJ 2065 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
- MST. FEHMIDA BEGUM Versus THE STATE Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Malik Rab Nawaz Noon , Muhammad Aslam Uns1986 PCRLJ 1728 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus THE STATE1986 PCRLJ 1506 · Federal Shariat Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ Versus THE STATE1985 PCRLJ 778 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-01-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus THE STATE M. Bilal , Muhammad Aslam Uns1985 PCRLJ 761 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1985 PCRLJ 344 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE1985 PCRLJ 2831 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus THE STATE1985 PCRLJ 2826 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAMSHED Versus THE STATE Malik Saeed Hassan and Muhammad Yameen , Malik Muhammad Aslam, Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.1985 PCRLJ 2740 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
- SABIR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1985 PCRLJ 258 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus THE STATE1985 PCRLJ 2550 · Federal Shariat Court · 1985-01-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IDREES Versus THE STATE Khan Younas Khan and Ch. Muhammad Ali , Bashir Pervez Khan1985 PCRLJ 1472 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus THE STATE1985 PCRLJ 145 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-03-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1984 PCRLJ 2762 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
- STATE Versus MUHAMMAD AHMAD1983 PCRLJ 401 · Drug Court · 1979-01-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL HALEPOTA, INSPECTOR OF DRUGS, KARACHI Versus MIAN SHUJA-UR-REHMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MESSRS THE SCHAZOO LABORATORIES LTD., LAHORE1979 PCRLJ 872 · Drug Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
- IDRIS PANDIT AND 11 OTHERS Versus THE STATE1971 PCRLJ 445 · Dacca · 1970-04-23Read full judgment →
- SAMAD ALI Versus EJAMUDDIN1970 PCRLJ 9 · Dacca · 1968-07-08Read full judgment →
- 1970 PCRLJ 61970 PCRLJ 6 · DaccaRead full judgment →
- MATIAR RAHMAN Versus STATE1970 PCRLJ 120 · Dacca · 1969-07-07Read full judgment →
- ROSMATERNESSA Versus MURTAZA ALI1970 PCRLJ 1101 · Dacca · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
- THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL1997 PCRLJ 408 · Chief Court, Gilgit · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus NOORI1997 PCRLJ 406 · Chief Court, Gilgit · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 405 · Chief Court, Gilgit · 1996-10-27Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ Versus THE STATE1997 PCRLJ 1319 · Chief Court, Gilgit · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
- Attaullah Versus State2025 PCrLJ 792 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account of a sole chance witness and the recovery of the crime weapon. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found the sole eye-witness unreliable, noting material discrepancies between his testimony and medical evidence, and his lack of prior familiarity with the appellant. Furthermore, the court ruled that the recovery of the crime weapon lacked evidentiary value because the weapon and crime empties were sent to the forensic laboratory simultaneously, creating a risk of tampering. Additionally, the alleged motive remained unproven. The court reaffirmed the principle that when an alleged motive is not proved, the ocular account must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and that any substantial doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the simultaneous submission of a weapon and crime empties to a forensic laboratory render the forensic report inadmissible or lacking in evidentiary value?
- What is the legal consequence when the prosecution alleges a motive but fails to prove it during trial?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a chance witness whose account contradicts medical evidence?
- Is a single substantial doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
- Muhammad Naeem Versus State2025 PCrLJ 732 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2000 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of police witnesses in the absence of private witnesses, the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases, and whether the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution’s evidence was consistent, credible, and sufficient to establish guilt. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded merely due to their official status. Furthermore, the Court held that the mandatory requirement of joining private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded in narcotics cases by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The Court also emphasized that once the prosecution discharges its initial onus, Section 29 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, creates a presumption of guilt that the accused must rebut.
Questions settled- Does the failure to join private witnesses in a narcotics recovery case violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are police officials considered competent witnesses in narcotics cases?
- Does Section 29 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 create a presumption of guilt against an accused?
- Safar Khan Versus State2025 PCrLJ 675 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a revision petition arising from the conviction of the appellant, a former Station House Officer, under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the custodial death of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established guilt through circumstantial evidence and whether the trial court’s sentence of twenty years required enhancement or reduction. The Court held that the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the deceased died while in the appellant's custody, and the medical evidence contradicted the appellant's defense of a fall. The Court affirmed that in cases of custodial death, the burden shifts to the custodian to explain the circumstances under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to ten years, noting the lack of direct evidence and motive. The judgment reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain, and a false or absent explanation by an accused constitutes an additional link in that chain.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to a police officer under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a death occurs in their custody?
- Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the accused provides a false explanation for the death?
- What is the standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal cases to ensure a complete chain of events?
- Is a sentence of twenty years for custodial death excessive when there is no direct evidence or proven motive?
- Sardar Hafeez Loni Versus State2025 PCrLJ 648 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions and a quashment petition concerning the dismissal of applications under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and orders relating to local commissions in criminal cases arising from dishonoured cheques. The core legal questions involved whether registration of separate FIRs for distinct dishonoured cheques issued under a settlement agreement amounts to double jeopardy and whether the appointment of a local commission to record the complainant's statement at his residence warrants interference. The court held that separate FIRs for cheques dishonoured on different dates do not constitute double jeopardy or offend section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the appointment of a local commission suffers from no legal infirmity. The key principles laid down are that the dishonour of separate post-dated cheques given in installments constitutes distinct transactions permitting separate criminal proceedings, and that procedural arrangements like local commissions for recording evidence are permissible unless shown to cause prejudice.
Questions settled- Does the registration of separate FIRs for multiple post-dated cheques dishonoured on different dates amount to double jeopardy?
- Whether the dismissal of an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sustainable when prima facie evidence exists against the accused?
- Can a trial court appoint a local commission to record the statement of a complainant at his residence?
- Do separate criminal trials for cheques issued under a subsequent arbitration agreement offend the provisions of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- State Versus Mahfia Kausar2025 PCrLJ 2001 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal judgment passed by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances (CNS) / Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta, in a case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Balochistan High Court examined whether an SHO or a private counsel can maintain an appeal against acquittal in a CNS case under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. The Court held that an SHO does not qualify as an 'aggrieved person' to file such an appeal, that Section 47 of the CNS Act, 1997 does not transpose general appeal provisions from the CrPC, that Section 48 of the CNS Act, 1997 is the exclusive remedy for all appeals from Special Courts, and that the appeal was barred by time under Article 155 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Furthermore, the Court found the appeal devoid of merit due to defective safe custody and sample transmission. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does an SHO qualify as an aggrieved person entitled to file an appeal against an acquittal under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Whether Section 47 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 transposes the provisions of appeal and revision from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 into the CNS Act?
- What is the limitation period for filing an appeal against the findings of a Special Court under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 before the High Court?
- Can a private counsel file an appeal against an acquittal in a State case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 without formal appointment as a Special Prosecutor?
- Mushtaq Hussain Khan Versus Mir Khan Khetran2025 PCrLJ 1986 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought the transfer of a criminal trial (FIR No. 29/2024, Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Rakhni, District Barkhan, to Quetta. The applicant, a resident of Punjab, alleged that he faced imminent threats to his life in Barkhan and that the complainant, despite residing in Islamabad, had chosen to lodge the FIR in his home district of Barkhan for ulterior motives. The respondent and the State opposed the transfer, arguing the threats were speculative. The High Court observed that the complainant had indeed lodged other FIRs in Islamabad, raising questions about the choice of venue. Emphasizing Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, the Court held that genuine apprehensions regarding safety and the ability to attend proceedings must be considered. Consequently, the Court ordered the transfer of the trial to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta, to ensure a fair trial and due process.
Questions settled- Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 require the consideration of a party's genuine safety apprehensions when deciding on a transfer of trial application?
- Can a criminal trial be transferred from one district to another based on the applicant's inability to safely attend proceedings in the original jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Irfan Versus State2025 PCrLJ 1934 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed against the judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of prosecution witness testimony, the evidentiary value of unverified CCTV footage without a forensic science laboratory report, the effect of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the application of the benefit of the doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in ocular accounts, lack of a forensic report for the CCTV footage, and an unexplained inordinate delay in reporting the crime. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the lower court judgments were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key legal principles established are that unverified CCTV footage cannot be relied upon without forensic authentication, an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR creates serious doubts, and a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether unverified CCTV footage can be relied upon as a piece of evidence without a forensic science laboratory report?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Whether contradictions and improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses render their testimony untrustworthy?
- Muhammad Arif Versus State2025 PCrLJ 1854 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular evidence from related and chance witnesses, the unnatural conduct of witnesses who failed to rescue the deceased or sustain any injuries during alleged indiscriminate firing, and the evidentiary value of delayed ballistic reports where crime weapons and empties were transmitted together. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene due to their unnatural conduct and contradictions in their testimony, and that delayed and simultaneous transmission of crime empties and weapons rendered the forensic report inconsequential. Consequently, the High Court laid down that testimonies of related witnesses lacking natural conduct and uncorroborated by independent evidence cannot form the basis of a conviction, and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, setting aside their conviction and acquitting them of the charge.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon when their conduct at the time of the occurrence is unnatural and inconsistent with human prudence?
- Does the simultaneous and delayed transmission of crime empties and alleged crime weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the ballistic expert report inconsequential?
- Is it necessary for the prosecution to establish safe custody and safe transmission of recovered items to rely on forensic evidence?
- What is the effect of the failure of eyewitnesses to sustain any injuries or make attempts to rescue the victim during alleged indiscriminate firing?
- Ashfaq Khalid Versus State2025 PCrLJ 1756 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal ehtesab appeals arise out of a judgment passed by the Accountability Court convicting the appellants for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, alongside an appeal by the State for enhancement of sentences. The core legal question centered on whether multiple references and consecutive trials for offences of the same kind committed over a span of years are sustainable, particularly when earlier references had already been tried and concluded, raising concerns of double jeopardy and the application of Section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to justify the prolonged delay in filing the separate reference and that trying the accused separately for offences committed during the same period violated the principles of a single trial under Section 17(d), amounting to double jeopardy. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the State's appeal for enhancement as infructuous. The key principle laid down is that multiple offences of the same kind committed over a span of years ought to be tried in a single trial in accordance with Section 17(d) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and fragmenting prosecutions to subject an accused to successive trials for contemporaneous allegations is unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does filing separate references for offences committed during the same period amount to double jeopardy?
- Whether multiple offences of the same kind committed over a span of years can be tried in a single trial under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- What is the effect of unexplained delay by the prosecution in filing subsequent references against an accused?
- Sajjad Khan Versus State2025 PCrLJ 1666 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 9(2) of the Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, regarding the alleged possession of six kilograms of crystal narcotics. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the contraband and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, improper maintenance of the Malkhana register, and a failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of the narcotics. Furthermore, the court found that the Chemical Examiner’s consolidated report violated statutory protocols requiring separate analysis for samples. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must strictly adhere to procedural requirements for handling case property and that any failure to establish safe custody, coupled with contradictory evidence, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does a consolidated Chemical Examiner report for multiple samples violate the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
- Is the prosecution required to prove the ownership or possession of a vehicle to secure a conviction for narcotics recovered from that vehicle?
- Does the failure to maintain a proper Malkhana register according to Police Rules create a reasonable doubt regarding the safe custody of narcotics?
- Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the recovery proceedings?
- Kazim Ali Versus Nadir Ali2025 PCrLJ 1546 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Quetta, which dismissed the petitioner's application for alteration of charge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from Section 337-F(iii) to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate for trial. The core legal question was whether the ingredients of an attempt to commit qatl-i-amd under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were attracted based on the medical reports and facts, or if the case was properly triable by a magistrate under Section 337-F(iii). The Balochistan High Court held that the ingredients of Section 324 were lacking, the medical evidence attracted Section 337-F(iii), and the trial court rightly transferred the case to the magistrate's court where concurrent jurisdiction existed and propriety demanded trial by the inferior forum. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with observations that the magistrate may utilize Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if evidence later warrants it.
Questions settled- Whether the trial court can refuse to alter a charge to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the medical evidence only supports hurt under Section 337-F(iii)?
- Can a Sessions Court transfer a criminal case to the Court of a Judicial Magistrate having concurrent or inferior jurisdiction when the offence is not triable exclusively by the Court of Session?
- What is the procedure when a Magistrate finds during trial that a case ought to be tried by a superior court under Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Asad Versus State2025 PCrLJ 1540 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's order confiscating a vehicle used in a narcotics offense and the subsequent dismissal of an application for its release on superdari. The core legal question is whether a vehicle can be confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the registered owner was not involved in the crime and lacked knowledge of the illicit activity. The Court held that the confiscation was improper because the prosecution failed to prove the owner's knowledge of the narcotics being transported, as required by the proviso to Section 32(2) of the Act of 1997. The Court emphasized that the mere use of a vehicle in a crime does not automatically warrant confiscation if the owner is innocent and unaware of the illegal use. Consequently, the Court set aside the confiscation order and the dismissal of the superdari application, ordering the release of the vehicle to the appellant upon verification, establishing that the burden of proving the owner's guilty knowledge lies with the prosecution.
Questions settled- Can a vehicle be confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if the owner was unaware of the narcotics being transported?
- Does the burden of proving the owner's knowledge of a narcotics offense lie with the prosecution for the purpose of vehicle confiscation?
- Is a vehicle liable to confiscation under Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if the owner was not involved in the commission of the offense?