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.
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD IDREES Versus GHAZANFAR ALI2021 MLD 1031 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus Syed MUHAMMAD TAHIR ZAHOOR2020 MLD 522 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-31Read full judgment →
- GEMALTO MIDDLE EAST FZ-LLC Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2020 MLD 379 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
- State Versus ZAFRAN MEHMOOD SATTI2020 MLD 1834 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the State under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad-East, in a case concerning the alleged recovery of an unlicensed pistol under the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the legal effect of failing to associate independent public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the requirement of sealing recovered weapons at the spot, and the necessity of obtaining a ballistic expert's report to prove a weapon functional. The Islamabad High Court held that the trial Court's judgment of acquittal was well-reasoned and free from perversity, noting that failure to seal the weapon at the spot, lack of independent corroboration, and absence of forensic analysis created multiple reasonable doubts. The Court affirmed that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and dismissed the appeal, laying down that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal that is based on sound reasoning and supported by material on record?
- Does the failure of the police to seal a recovered weapon at the spot and obtain a ballistic expert's report render the prosecution case doubtful?
- Is the association of independent public witnesses mandatory during a recovery from a public place under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the extent of proof required to grant an accused the benefit of doubt in a criminal trial?
- ABDUL KHALIQ Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS2019 MLD 824 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
- SHUJA AHMED Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (WEST), ISLAMABAD2019 MLD 590 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-10-26Read full judgment →
- PAK GULF CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ABDUL HAMID BAIG2019 MLD 1178 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
- ZIA ULLAH SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD KHAQAN2018 MLD 1869 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
- KHALID PERVEZ BHATTI Versus Mst. MADIHA RAFIQ2017 MLD 323 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-01Read full judgment →
- WASEEM HAROON Versus State2017 MLD 1737 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a bank robbery FIR. The core legal questions involved the validity of a conviction rendered without a proper charge being framed, the admissibility and evidentiary value of defective identification parades, and the reliability of questionable recovery proceedings. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to the complete absence of a formal charge for the tried offences, failure of eye-witnesses to identify the accused in court, abandonment of identification parade witnesses, inadmissible secondary evidence of identification reports, and fake and planted recoveries. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting all the appellants.
Questions settled- Does the failure to frame a specific and distinct charge under the Pakistan Penal Code vitiate a conviction?
- Can a conviction be sustained when eye-witnesses fail to identify the accused during the trial?
- What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade report produced only as an unexhibited photocopy?
- Are recoveries deemed planted when multiple recoveries are effected on different dates from the same searched premises?
- Raja MUHAMMAD RIZWAN Versus State2017 MLD 1522 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed seeking post-arrest bail on medical grounds by the petitioner, who was accused in a case registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 470, 408, and 467/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust and fraud involving a substantial financial loss while acting as the caretaker of the complainant's business. The core legal question was whether an under-trial prisoner suffering from Hepatitis-B is entitled to post-arrest bail on medical grounds when specialized treatment is allegedly unavailable in jail. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's condition was not shown to be hazardous or rapidly deteriorating, and that Hepatitis-B is not a casually contagious disease that warrants bail merely upon diagnosis when routine medical management and monitoring can be facilitated. The key principle laid down is that the mere existence of an ailment such as Hepatitis-B, without proof that it is life-threatening, rapidly deteriorating, or untreatable within the prison healthcare system, does not automatically justify the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an under-trial prisoner suffering from Hepatitis-B is entitled to post-arrest bail on medical grounds when treatment is claimed to be unavailable in jail?
- Does the mere diagnosis of Hepatitis-B without evidence of rapid deterioration or hazardous contagion justify the grant of bail?
- What directions may be issued to jail authorities regarding the specialized medical treatment of an under-trial prisoner while dismissing a bail plea?
- Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR Versus SUBASH CHANDAR2016 MLD 1596 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-30Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Versus SHER ZAMAN2015 MLD 913 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-03Read full judgment →
- FAZAL-E-QADIR Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM2015 MLD 899 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-04Read full judgment →
- HAMIDA FARHAT BURKI Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2015 MLD 845 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RABBANI Versus NAZIR AHMED2015 MLD 637 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-01-09Read full judgment →
- ATTA ULLAH SHAH Versus ADJ, ISLAMABAD2015 MLD 484 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-12-11Read full judgment →
- ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ISLAMABAD/RAWALPINDI Versus FEDERATION through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2015 MLD 1714 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-24Read full judgment →
- JAMEELA PIRZADA Versus MUHAMMAD ALI SHEIKH2013 MLD 877 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-10-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAKEELA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ISRAR2012 MLD 756 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-26Read full judgment →
- SHAHID MEHMOOD Versus Mst. NAUREEN IJAZ2012 MLD 1594 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-06-25Read full judgment →
- Raza Versus State2025 MLD 1875 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The captioned criminal revision petition was filed to challenge orders passed by the lower courts whereby the post-arrest bail applications of the petitioner in offences under sections 298-A and 489-Y A.P.C. were declined. The core legal question was whether bail can be refused in bailable offences where the accused claims it as a matter of right. The High Court held that in bailable offences, bail can be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be declined by the courts, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the release of the petitioner upon furnishing surety bonds. Additionally, the court initiated contempt proceedings against the judicial officers for ignoring binding precedents. The key principle laid down is that subordinate courts are strictly bound to follow the judgments of the superior courts and grant bail in bailable offences as a matter of right, and any deliberate deviation amounts to contempt of court.
Questions settled- Can bail be declined in bailable offences?
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right in bailable offences?
- Does a deviation from superior court judgments by subordinate courts amount to contempt of court?
- Affeera Abbasi Versus University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through its Registrar Muzaffarabad, Azad Jammu and Kashmir2025 MLD 1786 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mudassar Hanif Versus State2025 MLD 1629 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The revision petition challenges an order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Bhimber denying post-arrest bail on statutory grounds to the accused, who was charged under sections 302, 452, and 109 of the Azad Penal Code in FIR No. 195/2021. The petitioner argued entitlement to statutory bail having spent over three years and six months behind bars without being a previous convict. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a hardened, dangerous, and desperate criminal, thus disentitling him to the statutory proviso for bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that the indiscriminate daylight murder of two women, including his mother-in-law, with premeditation and the creation of extreme public fright rendered the accused a dangerous and desperate criminal, further noting that the trial was at the verge of conclusion. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the lower court's order.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who has been detained for more than two years without conclusion of trial is entitled to statutory bail if classified as a hardened, dangerous, and desperate criminal?
- What factors must a court consider when determining whether an accused is a hardened, dangerous, and desperate criminal under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the fact that a trial is at the verge of conclusion affect the grant of post-arrest bail on statutory grounds?
- State Versus Muhammad Sharif2025 MLD 1569 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Muzaffarabad, convicting Muhammad Sharif of murder and other offences under the Azad Penal Code and sentencing him to death, alongside the acquittal of co-accused Misbah under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions concern the validity of recording a confessional statement without affording the illiterate accused a reasonable opportunity to engage counsel or determining its voluntariness, and the legality of exercising powers under Section 265-K for acquittal when sufficient prosecution evidence implicates the accused. The High Court held that the trial Court failed to satisfy legal requirements regarding the confessional statement and erroneously acquitted the co-accused despite available eyewitness evidence. The Court set aside the conviction, sentence, and acquittal, quashed the confessional statement, answered the death sentence reference in the negative, and remanded the matter for a de novo trial.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is duty-bound to provide an accused an opportunity to engage counsel and ensure a confessional statement is made voluntarily before acting upon it?
- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when prosecution witnesses have implicated the accused and sufficient evidence exists?
- What are the legal prerequisites for invoking Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent a fruitless trial?
- JABIR HUSSAIN alias BABAR BUTT Versus State2021 MLD 195 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the rejection of a bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving the recovery of 5.225 kg of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2001, despite the statutory embargo on bail for such offences. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the accused failed to establish reasonable grounds for his innocence. The Court emphasized that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act is a special enactment with stringent provisions under Section 51, which creates a specific embargo on bail that overrides the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court affirmed that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is permissible, and deep appreciation of evidence is not allowed. Furthermore, the Court established that criminal cases must be decided based on their unique facts and circumstances, cautioning against the blind application of precedents without considering the specific factual context of the case.
Questions settled- Does the statutory embargo under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2001, override the general provisions for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Is a deep appreciation of the record permissible at the bail stage of a criminal proceeding?
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics, supported by a positive chemical examiner's report, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2001?
- MUHAMMAD MAROOF KHAN Versus State2020 MLD 609 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the District Criminal Court convicting the accused for murder. The core legal questions were whether the failure of the trial court to put incriminating pieces of documentary evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates the trial, and whether the absence of purgation (Tazkia) of prosecution witnesses under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws Act, 1974 renders the judgment illegal. The High Court held that omitting to put material evidence to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and failing to conduct the mandatory purgation of witnesses are illegalities that vitiate the trial and conviction. The court laid down the principle that every incriminating piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be put to the accused during examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. to provide an opportunity for explanation, and that mandatory purgation of witnesses under Section 26 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws Act, 1974 must be complied with, failing which the case must be remanded for re-trial.
Questions settled- Does the failure to put incriminating pieces of evidence to an accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiate the trial?
- What are the options available to an appellate court if a material piece of evidence is not put to an accused while recording his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Is the purgation of prosecution witnesses mandatory under section 26 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws Act, 1974?
- Does a judgment pronounced without conducting the purgation of witnesses render the conviction illegal?
- MUMTAZ BEGUM Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2019 MLD 2077 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-24Read full judgment →
- Raja MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN Versus Mst. FOZIA ISMAIL2019 MLD 1301 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-01-25Read full judgment →
- INHABITANTS OF VILLAGE NAROL Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary2018 MLD 93 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR2016 MLD 594 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-05-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHEED Versus Ch. MUNSHI KHAN2016 MLD 523 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus MOHAMMAD ASHRAF2016 MLD 454 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-08-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. RIASAT ALI Versus IMTIAZ BEGUM2016 MLD 1144 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-12-05Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD GULZAR KHAN2015 MLD 400 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-07-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY, (AJ&K)2015 MLD 1760 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANZOOR KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad2015 MLD 1452 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mir ABDUL REHMAN Versus KHURSHEED2015 MLD 1369 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-04-06Read full judgment →
- ANWAR BEGUM Versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, MANGLA DAM RAISING PROJECT, MIRPUR2014 MLD 840 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-01-27Read full judgment →
- DIWAN ALI Versus NIGHAT FAROOQ2012 MLD 1625 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2012-05-14Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD AKRAM QADRI Versus MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Mirpur2012 MLD 1562 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2012-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus ALLAH DAD alias KARAM DAD2007 MLD 1444 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2007-05-15Read full judgment →
- RAHIM DAD Versus ABDUL KAREEM1992 MLD 2111 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AZAD J&K, MUZAFFARABAD1990 MLD 1428 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif Versus State2025 MLD 1955 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2025-03-12Read full judgment →
- State Versus Arif Hussain2025 MLD 1740 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2025-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Anti-Terrorism Court in a case involving an explosion at the complainant's house. The core legal question revolved around whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, who was charged under section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for abetment and was not present at the scene, should be cancelled. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that none of the established grounds for bail cancellation—such as a patently illegal order, misuse of bail, tampering with evidence, or likelihood of absconsion—were made out. Furthermore, the court applied the rule of consistency since co-accused had already been granted bail and no incriminating evidence regarding abetment was collected. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the order confirming pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that bail cancellation requires proof of specific misuse or exceptional circumstances warranting revocation.
Questions settled- What are the primary grounds for the cancellation of bail under Pakistani criminal law?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused persons have already been granted pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled merely on the ground that the accused is charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Saddam Hussain Versus State2025 MLD 1634 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2025-05-29Read full judgment →
- PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Versus JUMLA AHLYAN BURSING MOUZA KEHCHONG (HUSSAINABAD)2023 MLD 817 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
- JUMLA BASHINDGAN DEEN Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN2023 MLD 1204 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
- NADIR HUSSAIN Versus State2021 MLD 1129 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 12,500 grams of Charas, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, was neither the owner nor driver of the vehicle, and that the police failed to comply with mandatory provisions regarding independent witnesses. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the procedural irregularities alleged. The Court held that the case required further inquiry due to the absence of a chemical examiner's report, the fact that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation himself, and the failure to submit a challan within the mandatory period. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that without expert chemical analysis, the prosecution's case remained open to doubt at the bail stage, and procedural lapses in investigation warranted relief.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report at the bail stage constitute grounds for further inquiry in a narcotics case?
- Can an Investigating Officer investigate a case where they are also the complainant or key official involved in the recovery?
- Does the failure to submit a challan within the statutory period entitle an accused to bail?
- Is the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a valid ground for granting bail in narcotics cases?
- BAKHMAL Versus State2020 MLD 883 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a murder case (FIR No. 47/2018) under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not nominated in the FIR and was not present at the scene of the crime, was entitled to bail based on the evidence presented. The prosecution's case against the petitioner rested solely on a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which was made five days after the occurrence. The Court held that the delay in recording the witness statement, combined with the petitioner's absence from the crime scene and lack of direct nomination in the FIR, created serious doubt regarding his involvement. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, ruling that the case against the petitioner fell under the category of 'further inquiry.' The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case against an accused rests on a belated witness statement, and the accused was not present at the scene, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does a five-day delay in recording a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create sufficient doubt to warrant bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when they are not nominated in the FIR and were not present at the scene of the crime?
- When does a criminal case qualify for the concession of 'further inquiry' regarding bail?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus State2020 MLD 480 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses criminal appeals and a revision petition arising from a murder incident where the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The appellants sought acquittal, while the complainant filed a revision for the enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of a statement treated as a dying declaration, the impact of minor discrepancies and police witness concessions, and the sufficiency of corroborative forensic evidence. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt based on confidence-inspiring ocular evidence that withstood lengthy cross-examination, corroborated by positive forensic reports regarding crime empties and weapons. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants, dismissing both the appeals and the revision petition for enhancement. The key principle laid down is that when ocular evidence firmly stands the test of cross-examination without being shattered, a conviction can be sustained even without corroboratory evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of ocular evidence when it withstands rigorous cross-examination?
- Whether a statement made by an injured person who later dies can be treated as a dying declaration?
- Do gratuitous or damaging concessions made by police witnesses during cross-examination automatically vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Is life imprisonment a proper alternate sentence for murder when the circumstances of the case warrant it instead of the death penalty?
- MUHAMMAD QAYUM KHAN Versus State2019 MLD 570 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. HALIMA Versus Mst. FATIMA2017 MLD 718 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-08-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus State2017 MLD 530 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtRead full judgment →
- MEHBOOB Versus State2017 MLD 2035 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
- NAVEED AKHTAR alias JANI Versus State2017 MLD 1081 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns the reliability of a dying declaration as the sole basis for conviction in the absence of eyewitnesses, particularly when contradicted by medical evidence. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the alleged dying declaration to be self-destructive, inconsistent between the witnesses—the complainant and a police officer—and medically improbable given the nature of the victim's orofacial injuries, which likely rendered speech impossible. Furthermore, the investigation was deemed flawed for failing to examine medical personnel present during the alleged declaration. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that a dying declaration, to be admissible and reliable, must be consistent, free from doubt, and corroborated by medical evidence, especially when it constitutes the primary evidence against an accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on a dying declaration when medical evidence indicates the victim was physically incapable of speech?
- Does a contradiction between the testimony of the complainant and police witnesses regarding the circumstances of a dying declaration render it unreliable?
- Is a conviction based on a dying declaration valid if the prosecution fails to examine the medical staff present at the time the declaration was allegedly made?
- FARID Versus GHULAM BAQAR2017 MLD 1031 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtRead full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Versus HASSAN SADPARA2016 MLD 34 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-08-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY/REVENUE COMMISSIONER, G.B. GILGIT2016 MLD 240 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-09-07Read full judgment →
- RESIDENTS OF TASSO Versus ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE STYANG DONG MOZA GODAL2016 MLD 1588 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-04-18Read full judgment →
- SADDAM Versus State2016 MLD 1370 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-29Read full judgment →
- RAZIULLAH Versus State2016 MLD 110 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-04-06Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH Versus State2014 MLD 1500 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2013-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by the petitioner, Nasrullah, seeking post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 113 of 2013 registered at Police Station City Skardu under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, after his previous bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Skardu. The core legal question is whether the offences alleged against the petitioner fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the offence under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 is bailable. The court held that no narcotics were found in the petitioner's vehicle to attract Section 3, but Section 4 was attracted, carrying a maximum punishment of two years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and is bailable under Schedule II of the Code. The court laid down the principle that possession of narcotics attracting Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 does not fall within the prohibitory clause and warrants the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does an offence under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an offence under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 bailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When can a petitioner be granted post-arrest bail if charged under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Muhammad Ramzan Versus State2025 MLD 1534 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which dismissed the petitioner's application to frame an amended charge under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner, accused of Qazf for disowning his child, sought to invoke 'Lian' proceedings, arguing the marriage was subsisting. The core legal question was whether Section 14 of the Qazf Ordinance, which governs Lian (a procedure for dissolving a marriage upon an accusation of Zina), applies when the marriage has already been dissolved. The Federal Shariat Court held that Lian proceedings require a subsisting marital relationship. Since the record confirmed the petitioner had pronounced a valid divorce prior to the accusation, the marriage was dissolved, rendering Section 14 inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 14 is procedural and cannot form the basis for a criminal charge. The revision petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the trial court correctly refused to amend the charge, as the statutory requirements for Lian were not met due to the prior dissolution of the marriage.
Questions settled- Can proceedings under Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be initiated if the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved?
- Is Section 14 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 a substantive penal provision or a procedural provision?
- Does a written divorce deed, when affirmed under oath, establish the effective date of dissolution of marriage?
- Muhammad Aman Versus State2025 MLD 1500 · Federal Shariat Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, where the appellant was sentenced to whipping for allegedly accusing his brother of Zina during civil proceedings. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court properly evaluated the authenticity of the alleged statement—specifically whether it was recorded by the presiding judge—and whether the trial court complied with the mandatory procedural requirements for initiating Qazf complaints. The Federal Shariat Court held that the trial court failed to adequately appreciate evidence regarding the disputed recording of the statement and neglected the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a de novo trial. The judgment reaffirms the principle that Hadd punishments must be free from doubt and that trial courts must conduct a thorough examination of evidence to ensure that complaints are not frivolous or vexatious, thereby protecting the accused's right to a fair trial.
Questions settled- Does a statement recorded in a civil court carry a rebuttable presumption of authenticity regarding the presence of the presiding officer?
- Is a trial court required to conduct a thorough examination of evidence under Section 203-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before taking cognizance of a Qazf complaint?
- Can a conviction for Qazf be sustained if the trial court fails to address substantial doubts regarding the recording of the alleged statement?
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD Versus State2021 MLD 1886 · Federal Shariat Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a conviction and death sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a six-year-old girl. The appellant challenged the judgment, alleging false implication and retracting his earlier confession. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, the voluntariness of the judicial confession, and the validity of the identification parade. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution successfully established a flawless chain of events, corroborated by the postmortem report, the recovery of the victim's body upon the appellant's pointation, and the identification of the appellant by witnesses. The Court affirmed that a voluntary and true judicial confession, when corroborated by independent evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintained the conviction, and confirmed the death sentence. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and corroborated by medical and forensic findings, the retraction of a confession does not undermine the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Is a judicial confession sufficient to convict an accused if it is found to be voluntary and true?
- Does the failure of an accused to examine himself on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without legal value?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is well-connected and corroborated by medical reports?
- MUHAMMAD BUX Versus State2021 MLD 1725 · Federal Shariat Court · 2019-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, where the trial court relied solely on the appellant’s statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of such statements when prosecution evidence is deficient, the necessity of cross-examination, and the requirement for proving the chain of custody for narcotics. The Federal Shariat Court set aside the conviction, holding that an inculpatory statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot sustain a conviction if the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court affirmed that cross-examination is a fundamental right and that trial judges must actively exercise powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to discover the truth rather than acting as passive observers. Additionally, the court ruled that failing to prove the secure transmission of samples violates mandatory rules, rendering the prosecution's case untenable.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted solely on an inculpatory statement made under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, if the prosecution case is otherwise weak?
- Is it legally permissible to convict an accused simultaneously under both Article 3 and Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for the same act?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of narcotics samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
- Are trial courts obligated to exercise their powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to summon essential witnesses?
- Syed SAJJAD HAIDER NAQVI Versus Mst. SADIA BIBI2019 MLD 225 · Federal Shariat Court · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mrs. AMBREEN TARIQ AWAN Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Law and Justice Islamabad2013 MLD 1885 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-06-14Read full judgment →
- Syed MAQSOOD SHAH BUKHARI Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Secretary M/o Law and Justice, Islamabad2013 MLD 1808 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-05-02Read full judgment →
- KHAWAR IQBAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Law and Justice, Islamabad2013 MLD 1711 · Federal Shariat Court · 2013-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN Versus THE STATE2004 MLD 995 · Federal Shariat Court · 2001-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for his involvement in a dacoity. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of recoveries and witness testimony, and whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case, as the appellant was identified by a domestic servant present at the scene, and stolen ornaments were recovered at the appellant's instance, with no substantial evidence presented by the defense to discredit the prosecution witnesses. The court affirmed the conviction but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment and fine, noting the appellant's role in the offence while maintaining proportionality. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution provides consistent evidence of recovery and identification, and the defense offers only a bare denial without substantiating allegations of police fabrication, the conviction is sustainable, though the appellate court retains discretion to modify sentences in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Does the absence of public witnesses to a recovery of stolen property automatically invalidate the recovery?
- Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment and fine even if the conviction is maintained?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the accused offers only a bare denial to the prosecution's evidence of recovery and identification?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 628 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus STATE2000 MLD 411 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for narcotics trafficking. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the search conducted without a warrant, the alleged violation of the privacy of the home, and whether the evidence supported a conviction for trafficking (Article 3) versus mere possession (Article 4). The Court held that while the search was valid because it was conducted in the presence of Magistrates, invoking Sections 64 and 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the prosecution failed to prove the sale of narcotics. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Article 3 and converted it to Article 4, reducing the sentence and fine accordingly. The Court affirmed that while the privacy of the home is constitutionally protected, it is subject to law and may be suspended upon credible information of a heinous, cognizable crime. Furthermore, the head of a household is responsible for illicit items found within his residence. The confiscated money was ordered returned as the sale was not proven.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the sale of narcotics?
- Does the presence of a Magistrate during a house search validate the search in the absence of a formal search warrant?
- Is the privacy of a home inviolable when there is credible information regarding the commission of a heinous, cognizable crime?
- Can the head of a household be held responsible for the possession of illicit narcotics found within the residence?
- MUHAMMAD ABDUL QADOOS TARIQ Versus STATE2000 MLD 386 · Federal Shariat Court · 1999-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant forcibly abducted a minor girl, Mst. Shazia, and subjected her to Zina. The trial court acquitted the appellant of abduction but convicted him of Zina on the premise that the victim was a consenting minor. The core legal questions involved the determination of the victim's age, whether she was a sui juris capable of giving valid consent, and whether the admitted sexual intercourse constituted Zina when a valid marriage (Nikah) was claimed. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor and not a sui juris, noting the destruction of ossification records and the improper admission of an unexhibited school certificate. The court found that the victim was a consenting adult who had validly contracted marriage with the appellant. Consequently, cohabitation did not constitute Zina under section 4 of the Ordinance. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether the alleged victim was a minor in the sense of being a pubert but having not attained the status of a sui juris at the time of being a consenting party to the commission of Zina?
- Whether the admitted sexual intercourse between the appellant and alleged victim fell within the meaning of Zina as defined in section 4 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- In case the offence is that of Zina with consent of the minor but pubert female, does it attract conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- FARMAN ALI Versus STATE1999 MLD 3105 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR Versus STATE1999 MLD 2414 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-04-29Read full judgment →
- DAULAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1998 MLD 944 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISRAR Versus STATE1998 MLD 871 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
- EHSAN ULLAH Versus STATE1998 MLD 805 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
- FIRDOS BEGUM Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL SHAH1998 MLD 796 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
- FARKHANDA BIBI Versus STATE1998 MLD 729 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
- GUL ZAMIN Versus STATE1998 MLD 713 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHER Versus STATE1998 MLD 700 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
- TAGA KHAN Versus STATE1998 MLD 662 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1998 MLD 637 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
- SABIR KHAN Versus STATE1998 MLD 518 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ Versus STATE1998 MLD 344 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-12Read full judgment →
- INAYATUR REHMAN Versus STATE1998 MLD 323 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
- SAJID HUSSAIN Versus STATE1998 MLD 312 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus STATE1998 MLD 306 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-07-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1998 MLD 294 · Federal Shariat Court · 1996-12-31Read full judgment →
- SHIREEN MAZHAR Versus STATE1998 MLD 276 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-09-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus STATE1998 MLD 243 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1998 MLD 1358 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1998 MLD 1326 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-01-08Read full judgment →
- UCC PRIVATE LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1998 MLD 1186 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
- MEHBOOB AHMAD Versus STATE1998 MLD 1175 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-09Read full judgment →
- ORGANON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. Versus RAFAT ALT KHAN1998 MLD 1166 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-08-06Read full judgment →