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.
- JALALUDDIN Versus STATE1998 MLD 1154 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
- SYED AFSAR SHAH Versus STATE1998 MLD 1137 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
- MASHKOOR AHMED Versus AZIZ-UR-REHMAN KHAN1998 MLD 1080 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
- QASIM Versus RAHIM SHAH1998 MLD 1014 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-01-18Read full judgment →
- STATE Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD1996 MLD 936 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-07-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1996 MLD 779 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LABBAR Versus STATE1996 MLD 772 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus STATE1995 MLD 945 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA Versus STATE1995 MLD 935 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZEER Versus STATE1995 MLD 1704 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus STATE1995 MLD 1680 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1994 MLD 1053 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1993 MLD 2247 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1992 MLD 2326 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODUR RAHMAN FAISAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1992 MLD 2321 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- 1992 MLD 18661992 MLD 1866 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
- ZAHOOR Versus STATE1992 MLD 1582 · Federal Shariat Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB Versus STATE1992 MLD 1079 · Federal Shariat Court · 1991-06-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL ALIAS WAKIL Versus STATE1992 MLD 1060 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE1990 MLD 1500 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-04-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus STATE1990 MLD 1463 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-03-14Read full judgment →
- NASIR KHAN Versus STATE1990 MLD 1459 · Federal Shariat Court · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1985 MLD 1405 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-11-15Read full judgment →
- UMESH KUMAR Versus Engineer BASANT LAL GULSHAN2011 MLD 1360 · Election Tribunal · 2011-01-26Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH KHAN Versus GHAFOOR JADOON1992 MLD 2540 · Election Tribunal · 1992-07-25Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ALI LEGHARI Versus RETURNING OFFICER1992 MLD 2312 · Election Tribunal · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH KHAN Versus DILAWAR KHAN1987 MLD 1396 · Election Tribunal · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- BADRUDDIN Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN KAKAR1988 MLD 294 · Election Commission of Pakistan · 1988-03-20Read full judgment →
- AMINA Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN1997 MLD 972 · Chief Court, GilgitRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN2016 MLD 214 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus Mst. ZUHRAN BIBI2015 MLD 81 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 2013-11-08Read full judgment →
- Malik MASOOD AHMAD Versus IQBAL AHMAD2015 MLD 759 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 2014-10-15Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus ASHIQ2015 MLD 1778 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 2014-01-09Read full judgment →
- MEHR KHAN Versus State2009 MLD 855 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 2008-02-25Read full judgment →
- DILDAR KHAN Versus ISHTIAQ AHMAD2009 MLD 840 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 2008-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mian ALI NAWAZ Versus KIIALID HUSSAIN2009 MLD 797 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 2008-11-26Read full judgment →
- MAMAND Versus BASHIR AHMAD2000 MLD 1984 · Board of Revenue, PunjabRead full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus STATE1996 MLD 407 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1979-08-16Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD Versus STATE1996 MLD 344 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
- FAZAL AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1992 MLD 766 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-06-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN1992 MLD 761 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- BAHADAR ALI Versus MUHAMMAD YAR1992 MLD 504 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-07-17Read full judgment →
- GHULAM FATIMA Versus BASHIR AHMAD1992 MLD 2081 · Board of Revenue, PunjabRead full judgment →
- QHULAM QADIR Versus QAIM BAKHSH1992 MLD 2078 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-08-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN Versus ABDUL SHAKOOR1992 MLD 2063 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus IRSHAD ALI SHAH1992 MLD 2059 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL GHANI1992 MLD 2057 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
- NABI KHAN Versus GHAFOOR KHAN.1992 MLD 2053 · Board of Revenue, PunjabRead full judgment →
- HANIFAN BIBI Versus NOOR AHMAD1992 MLD 1987 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR1992 MLD 1986 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1989-12-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DAIM Versus NAZIR MUHAMMAD1992 MLD 1983 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-07-28Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus STATE1992 MLD 1982 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus NEK MUHAMMAD1992 MLD 1979 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1988 MLD 799 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail Versus State2025 MLD 778 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns a bail application filed by an individual accused of possessing 1200 grams of baked 'Charas', registered under Section 9(1)3(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022. The core legal question revolved around whether the recovered quantity of charas, which included the weight of the polythene bag, definitively fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The court held that since the net weight of the charas, excluding the packaging, was not established, it became a borderline case between Section 9(3)(b) and Section 9(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act of 1997. Given that Section 9(3)(b) does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., the court decided that it was a case of further inquiry, entitling the applicant to bail. The key principle laid down is that bail is a rule for offences not falling under the prohibitory clause, especially where the exact classification of the offence is uncertain due to factual ambiguity regarding the quantity of contraband.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted in a narcotics case where the exact net weight of the contraband is uncertain due to packaging?
- Does an offence fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. if it is a borderline case between two subsections of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, one of which is non-prohibitory?
- Is bail a rule for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Taj Muhammad Versus State2025 MLD 1980 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order disposes of a criminal bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question involved was whether the provisions of Section 9(1)3-C of the Amendment Act, 2022 have retrospective effect so as to affect accused persons arrested and indicted prior to its insertion. The Balochistan High Court held that the amendments introduced via the Amendment Act, 2022 are prospective in nature and do not apply retrospectively to take away rights or place embargoes on accused persons whose cases, arrests, and trials commenced prior to the enactment. The court laid down the principle that statutes and amendments altering legal consequences or rights are presumed to be prospective unless clear retrospective intent is shown, and the rights of parties are governed by the law existing when the action or trial was initiated.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Section 9(1)3-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022 have retrospective effect?
- Does a subsequent change in law take away rights accrued to an accused at the time of the commission of the offence and initiation of trial?
- Can bail be granted on the rule of further inquiry when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for interrogation?
- Hamdullah Versus Faizullah2025 MLD 1934 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-07-29Read full judgment →
- Hizbullah Versus State2025 MLD 1887 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation. The core legal questions involve the credibility of delayed ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of delayed FIR registration, and the consistency between medical and ocular evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with a belated recording of police statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the arrest of the accused, casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case and points towards planting of witnesses. Furthermore, contradictions between the medical evidence regarding the time of death and rigor mortis versus the ocular account rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Does the delayed recording of statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cast serious doubt on the reliability of eyewitnesses?
- Can contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the time of death provide a sufficient basis for extending the benefit of doubt to an accused?
- Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances to extend the benefit of doubt to an accused person?
- Muhammad Rashid Versus Bibi Fatima2025 MLD 1751 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-05-31Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah Versus Inspector General of Police Balochistan, Quetta2025 MLD 1720 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
- M/s Nasar Enterprises Versus Government of Balochistan through Secretary Services and General Administration Department, Government of Balochistan2025 MLD 1616 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irfan Versus State2025 MLD 1601 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal filed by the convict against his conviction and sentence under Sections 395 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Quetta. The case stemmed from an armed dacoity where cash and a mobile phone were snatched from the complainant and his cousin. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, an identification parade supervised by a Judicial Magistrate, and an extra-judicial disclosure made in police custody leading to the recovery of stolen currency notes. The High Court considered whether a confession/disclosure made in police custody is admissible when followed by the discovery of new facts and recovery of stolen property, and whether the identification parade was valid. The Balochistan High Court affirmed the conviction, holding that under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, information provided by an accused in police custody is admissible to the extent it distinctly relates to facts thereby discovered. Finding the eyewitness evidence reliable and corroborated by recoveries and proper identification, the court dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Is a disclosure made by an accused in police custody admissible in evidence when it leads to the recovery of stolen property and discovery of unknown facts?
- Can a conviction be based on an extra-judicial confession if it is proved to be true, voluntary, and supported by surrounding circumstances?
- Whether the identification of an accused during a test identification parade supervised by a Judicial Magistrate is admissible to corroborate eyewitness testimony?
- Hotak alias Sapak Versus State2025 MLD 139 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant for murder and attempted murder during a police raid. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular testimony, the voluntariness and evidentiary value of the appellant's confessional statement, and the determination of appropriate quantum of punishment when multiple persons engage in indiscriminate firing. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular accounts and a voluntary judicial confession. However, because it could not be ascertained which specific assailant inflicted the fatal injury due to indiscriminate firing by multiple persons, a mitigating circumstance was made out, warranting the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that where the seat of the fatal injury cannot be specifically attributed to a single accused amidst indiscriminate firing by multiple actors, capital punishment may be mitigated to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does a judicial confession corroborated by consistent eye-witness testimony form a sufficient basis for a murder conviction?
- Whether capital punishment can be mitigated to life imprisonment where multiple persons engaged in indiscriminate firing and the fatal injury cannot be specifically attributed to a single accused?
- Is a confessional statement recorded after due warnings and without coercion legally admissible and reliable?
- What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the recovery witnesses and a positive forensic report are lacking?
- Gulshan Bibi Versus State2025 MLD 1389 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 9(1)3c of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 2300 grams of charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and unbroken chain of transmission of the contraband from the place of recovery to the malkhana and onwards to the forensic laboratory. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and safe transmission due to material lapses, including a lack of evidence regarding handing over the recovered items to the investigating officer and an unexplained delay in delivering the sample to the laboratory. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, laying down the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken, unsuspicious, and indubitable chain of custody of the seized narcotics, failing which the chemical examiner's report becomes unreliable and cannot sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in transmitting a narcotic sample to the testing laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
- What is the legal effect of a broken or unestablished chain of custody of seized narcotics on the report of the Government Analyst?
- Whether failure to establish safe custody of contraband from the place of recovery to the malkhana entitles the accused to acquittal?
- Ali Raza Versus State2025 MLD 1334 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ali Raza, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the possession of 41 kilograms of charas recovered from a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the recovery, the safe custody and transmission of the narcotics, and the validity of the secret cavity theory. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court found material contradictions in the testimony regarding the weight of the samples and the handling of the parcels. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to demonstrate the existence or accessibility of the alleged secret cavities in the vehicle. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that failing to draw separate samples from each packet renders a consolidated sample representative of only one packet. Additionally, the Court ruled that the appellant's disclosure statement was inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the failure to draw separate samples from each packet of narcotics result in the consolidated sample representing only one packet?
- Is a disclosure statement admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if the recovery was not effected in consequence of that disclosure?
- Does the failure to produce or identify the specific cavity in a vehicle from which narcotics were allegedly recovered cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Mehrban Khan Versus Babar Ali2025 MLD 1299 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-04-18Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED Versus State2024 MLD 238 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal application was filed by the complainant seeking to set aside an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khanozai, whereby pre-arrest bail was confirmed in favour of the respondents in a case arising from an FIR registered under offences including hurt. The core legal question was whether strong and exceptional grounds existed to warrant the cancellation of pre-arrest bail already granted by the competent court. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the application, holding that the considerations for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting it, and that once bail is granted, it cannot be lightly interfered with unless the order is perverse, patently illegal, or results in a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the medical injury fell under a bailable provision, a civil dispute existed between the parties, and the delay in lodging the FIR warranted further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that the cancellation of bail is a harsh measure requiring substantive proof that the bail-granting order was perverse or suffered from gross illegality.
Questions settled- What are the distinct principles governing the cancellation of bail compared to the grant of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed on the ground of further inquiry when a civil dispute underlies the criminal charge?
- Whether delay in lodging an FIR without explanation can be a factor in maintaining pre-arrest bail?
- ABDUL KHALIQ Versus State2023 MLD 98 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused facing trial for the possession of narcotics under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the statutory embargo on bail under Section 51 of the Act applies to offences under Section 9(c), and whether the accused was entitled to bail given the negative findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The Court held that Section 51 does not create an absolute bar to bail for offences under Section 9(c) because such offences are not exclusively punishable by death, as they carry a range of imprisonment. Furthermore, the Court determined that the FSL report, which concluded that the recovered substance was not a narcotic, created a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that the benefit of doubt regarding the nature of the recovered substance can be extended at the bail stage, and that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment.
Questions settled- Does Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, impose an absolute bar on the grant of bail for offences under Section 9(c)?
- Can the benefit of doubt regarding the nature of a recovered substance be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
- Is a negative report from a chemical analyst regarding the nature of a recovered substance sufficient to establish a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- MUHAMMAD AMEEN Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PANJGUR2023 MLD 910 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
- RABBA Versus State2023 MLD 831 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the culpable homicide of the deceased under sections 302(b), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the status of eyewitnesses as chance witnesses, and the implications of the absence of motive and shared common object. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular accounts corroborated by medical evidence, and that the presence of eyewitnesses was natural. The Court ruled that the absence of a proved motive only impacts the quantum of sentence rather than resulting in an acquittal, and that common object can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of the crime. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be discarded solely on the ground that they are chance witnesses?
- Does the absence of a proved motive benefit the defence and result in the acquittal of the accused?
- How can the sharing of a common object and intention be inferred in a criminal case?
- What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence in identifying the culprit in a homicide case?
- Bibi ZULAHKHA (WIDOW) Versus Mst. NAIK MURGHA2023 MLD 588 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR2023 MLD 226 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
- GULZAR Versus State2023 MLD 1344 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under sections 302(b), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one person and injury to another. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witness testimony, the corroborative value of medical evidence, and the legal consequences of delayed recovery and dispatch of crime weapons. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular account furnished by the complainant and the injured witness, being natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the absence of independent corroboration or when weapon recoveries are rendered doubtful. The court laid down that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relation with the deceased if it is confidence-inspiring and truthful, and that the substitution of real culprits is a rare phenomenon in criminal justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were maintained.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Does a delay in sending crime weapons and empties to the firearms expert render the expert report inconsequential?
- What constitutes constructive liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a case involving multiple armed assailants?
- Whether minor contradictions in police testimonies regarding weapon recovery are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the entire prosecution case?
- ALI HAIDER Versus State2023 MLD 1289 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for murder under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns the reliability of an identification parade conducted after a significant delay and without proper procedural safeguards, alongside the sufficiency of prosecution evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, as the identification parade suffered from fatal infirmities: it was held at a police station, lacked a list of dummy participants, and occurred after an unexplained one-month delay, during which witnesses had access to the appellants. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the specific roles of the accused, and the recovery of weapons from a public flood channel was deemed legally irrelevant. The Court emphasized that identification proceedings are merely corroborative and cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can an identification parade conducted at a police station without a list of dummy participants be considered reliable evidence?
- Does the failure of witnesses to describe the physical features of the accused in the FIR invalidate a subsequent identification parade?
- Is the recovery of a weapon from a public place like a flood water channel sufficient to establish exclusive possession under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Can an identification parade serve as the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
- KAURA KHAN Versus State2023 MLD 1260 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The proceedings were significantly delayed by frequent lawyers' strikes, prompting the Court to determine the legality of such boycotts, the obligation of courts to adjourn in response, and the authority of Bar Associations to penalize non-striking lawyers. The Court held that lawyers possess no right to strike or boycott court proceedings, as such actions violate the fundamental rights of litigants to speedy justice and due process. Consequently, courts are not obligated to adjourn cases due to strike calls. Regarding the merits, the Court acquitted the appellants, finding the prosecution’s case failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was based on unreliable chance witnesses, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, while a material witness was withheld. The Court emphasized that the right to protest is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of others. Legal professionals, as officers of the court, are bound by their duty to the administration of justice over strike calls.
Questions settled- Do lawyers have a fundamental right to observe strikes or boycott court proceedings?
- Are courts under an obligation to adjourn cases due to the non-appearance of counsel participating in a strike?
- Can a Bar Association or Bar Council take punitive action against an advocate who refuses to participate in a strike call?
- Does the right to protest include the right to block court premises and prevent access to justice?
- ABDUL BARI alias HAKEEM BARI Versus State2023 MLD 1154 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of the deceased following a sudden altercation among friends. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the effect of non-production of an eyewitness under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the evidentiary value of a belated weapon recovery and inconclusive Forensic Science Laboratory report. The Balochistan High Court held that consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction even where weapon recovery and FSL reports are rendered doubtful. The Court laid down that quality of evidence prevails over the quantity of witnesses, that non-production of an eyewitness does not damage the prosecution case if other evidence is reliable, and that an unpremeditated murder arising from a sudden quarrel on a trifle matter warrants the sentence of life imprisonment rather than capital punishment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the basis of consistent and trustworthy ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence when weapon recovery and FSL reports are disregarded?
- Does the non-production of an eyewitness necessarily lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- What is the evidentiary value of a belated dispatch of crime empties and a recovered weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory together?
- Whether an unpremeditated murder committed during a sudden quarrel over a trifle matter justifies a sentence of life imprisonment instead of capital punishment?
- PERVAIZ Versus State2023 MLD 1086 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the admissibility of recovery evidence, and whether the circumstances warranted the capital sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant through consistent eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the bloodstained weapon, which was admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. However, the Court determined that the incident arose suddenly from a dispute without premeditation. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence from death to life imprisonment, applying the principle that capital punishment is inappropriate where the offense occurs at the spur of the moment without prior planning. The Court also extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant.
Questions settled- Is a disclosure statement regarding the recovery of a weapon admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does an incident occurring at the spur of the moment without premeditation constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of an injured eyewitness?
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN Versus State2023 MLD 1054 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of the appellant's initial spontaneous disclosure to the police as part of the res gestae, and the validity and voluntariness of his subsequently retracted judicial confession. The Balochistan High Court held that the appellant's immediate disclosure and production of the crime weapon at the police station prior to formal investigation formed part of the res gestae under Article 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that a retracted judicial confession can validly form the basis of a conviction if found to be voluntary and true. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person's immediate disclosure of a crime and production of the weapon at a police station before the commencement of investigation qualifies as res gestae under Article 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Can a retracted judicial confession validly form the sole basis for the conviction of the maker?
- Does delay in recording a judicial confession render it inadmissible in the absence of proof of coercion, threat, or pressure?
- What are the essential legal characteristics required to regard a fact or statement as res gestae evidence?
- ZAQOOM Versus State2021 MLD 729 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for murder. The core legal questions involved whether the retracted judicial confession was voluntary and reliable, whether the ocular account of related witnesses was trustworthy, and whether the offence fell under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) given the sudden nature of the fight and injuries sustained by the appellant. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution established the appellant's guilt through natural eyewitness testimony and a voluntary judicial confession, but altered the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment, as the incident occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation, attracting the principles of mitigating circumstances akin to Exception 4 of Section 300.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction if found to be voluntary and corroborated by other evidence?
- Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
- Does a sudden fight without premeditation bring a murder case within the purview of Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Must a judicial confession be accepted or rejected as a whole including its exculpatory parts?
- SADAM HUSSAIN alias KOBRA Versus State2021 MLD 1763 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal appeals and a revision petition directed against a trial court judgment regarding a murder incident where the principal accused was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment, while a co-accused was acquitted. The core legal questions surrounded the credibility of related ocular witnesses, the corroborative value of the appellant's absconsion, the consistency between medical and ocular evidence, and the justification for setting aside an acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimonies of related eyewitnesses, being natural and unshaken through cross-examination, are reliable in the absence of demonstrated animosity, and that willful absconsion acts as a strong corroborative piece of evidence. Furthermore, the appellate court upheld the acquittal, reiterating that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence that cannot be disturbed unless perverse. The key principles laid down include that mere relationship to a deceased does not render a witness interested unless an active motive to falsely implicate is proven, and that medical evidence cannot be argued to conflict with oral testimony without specific, reasoned substantiation.
Questions settled- Can the testimonies of eyewitnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their inter se relationship with the deceased?
- Whether willful absconsion of an accused can be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence to support a conviction?
- What is the threshold for reversing an order of acquittal which carries a double presumption of innocence?
- Is a mere assertion of conflict between medical evidence and oral testimony sufficient to discredit the prosecution case without detailed explanation?
- UBAIDULLAH Versus State2021 MLD 1720 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal bail before arrest application filed by the applicant, Ubaidullah, seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 14 of 2020 registered at Police Station Aziz Balo Shaheed Notal, District Naseerabad, under sections 302, 324, 109, 506(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail when specific roles of firing and causing injuries are attributed to co-accused persons while no such overt act, injury, or instigation is attributed to the applicant, and whether the direct approach to the High Court is maintainable under exceptional circumstances. The Balochistan High Court held that the case against the applicant falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as no specific injury or active role was attributed to him, and extended the benefit of the rule of consistency since a co-accused had already been granted bail. The court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, establishing key principles regarding the broader interpretation of bail laws to protect personal liberty and the applicability of further inquiry where specific attribution is absent.
Questions settled- Can an accused directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail instead of first moving the Sessions Court under exceptional circumstances?
- Does the absence of a specific role or injury attribution bring a case within the scope of further inquiry for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is the rule of consistency applicable when a co-accused with similar allegations has already been granted bail by the court?
- What are the foundational presumptions governing the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal jurisprudence?
- ABDUL SALEEM Versus ABDUL AZIZ2021 MLD 1001 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus State2020 MLD 1390 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, passed by the trial court. The appellant was convicted for the possession of 1800 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the chain of custody and safe transmission of the recovered contraband. The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the official responsible for the safe custody of the contraband at the police station (Malkhana) and failed to produce the official who delivered the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Furthermore, the court noted an unexplained delay in sending the samples for analysis. Relying on the principle that the prosecution must prove the safe custody and safe transmission of recovered substances through independent evidence to secure a conviction, the Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Does a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a plea of guilty?
- Is an appeal against conviction competent where the conviction is based on a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rather than a formal plea of guilty?
- Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance?
- NASEEBULLAH Versus State2019 MLD 746 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the double murder of his wife and another person. The core legal question was whether the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation upon finding the deceased persons in a compromising position, and whether such circumstances warrant converting the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that the confessional statement and circumstantial evidence established that the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation, which operates as a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the High Court modified the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced the sentence to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that killings committed under grave and sudden provocation, such as discovering spouses in a compromising position, fall within the purview of Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as a mitigating circumstance reducing the quantum of punishment.
Questions settled- Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be considered by the court even if it was not expressly taken by the accused during the trial?
- Does discovering spouses in a compromising position amount to grave and sudden provocation under Pakistani criminal law?
- Whether a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be converted to Section 302(c) in cases of mitigating circumstances?
- What are the essential elements required to establish the defense of provocation in cases of homicide?
- ALLAH DAD Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ2019 MLD 69 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mir FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ALAM2019 MLD 22 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-19Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Versus MUHAMMAD ALI2018 MLD 999 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus OBAID-UR-REHMAN2018 MLD 1781 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the respondents shared a common intention or played any active role in the commission of the murder, or if their mere presence without overt acts was sufficient to establish vicarious liability. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any overt act, common intention, or mens rea on the part of the respondents, who were empty-handed, while the fatal shot was attributed solely to an absconding co-accused. The Court affirmed that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and will not be interfered with unless found arbitrary or perverse. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether mere presence of an accused at the crime scene without any overt act is sufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an order of acquittal be interfered with when the prosecution fails to establish common intention or mens rea?
- What is the evidentiary scope and legal weight of a double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal judgment?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus State2018 MLD 1758 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Killa Abdullah at Chaman, which summoned the petitioner as an accused despite his discharge by the Investigating Officer under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an Investigating Officer possesses the authority to weigh conflicting evidence, specifically a plea of alibi supported by CCTV footage, against prosecution evidence, and thereby discharge an accused, or if such determination remains the exclusive domain of the trial court. The Court held that the Investigating Officer lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the truthfulness of a defense plea of alibi when sufficient incriminating evidence exists against the accused. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to summon the accused. The key principle laid down is that an Investigating Officer’s power under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is limited to cases where evidence is deficient; they cannot usurp the judicial function of weighing competing evidence, which is the exclusive prerogative of the trial court.
Questions settled- Does an Investigating Officer have the authority to weigh a plea of alibi against prosecution evidence under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a trial court summon an accused person who has been placed in column No. 2 of the challan by the Investigating Officer?
- Is the determination of an accused's guilt or innocence based on conflicting evidence the exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court?
- At what stage can a trial court exercise its powers under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused?
- GHULAM FAROOQ Versus DOLAT KHAN2018 MLD 1466 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus State2018 MLD 1033 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder and murderous assault under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment. The core legal question centered on whether the previous statement of an injured witness, recorded during a trial in absentia before the appellant's arrest and subsequent remand, could be legally transferred and relied upon as secondary evidence under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, following the witness's death. The Balochistan High Court held that the statement of the deceased injured witness was properly admitted under Article 47 as the witness's death was established and the appellant had been represented and afforded an opportunity to cross-examine in the prior judicial proceeding. However, noting that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, the court upheld the conviction based on the reliable testimony of the injured witness corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether the statement of a witness recorded in a previous trial in absentia can be used in a subsequent de novo trial under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can an accused be legally convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a single injured witness whose statement was transferred from an earlier proceeding?
- Whether proceedings conducted under Section 19(10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the absence of an absconding accused constitute a valid judicial proceeding for the purpose of admitting secondary evidence later?
- NASEER AHMED Versus KHAIR BIBI2017 MLD 2068 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
- NASEEBULLAH KHAN Versus ABDUS SAMEE BABAR2017 MLD 1894 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Versus Mst. ZAINAB alias ZEENA2017 MLD 1344 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMED Versus State2016 MLD 1990 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sibi, convicting the appellant under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for possessing a forged currency note. The core legal question was whether mere possession of a forged currency note is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 489-C without proving the accused's knowledge, reason to believe it was forged, or intention to use it as genuine. The Balochistan High Court held that mere possession of a counterfeit currency note does not constitute an offence under Section 489-C, and the prosecution must affirmatively establish that the accused knew or had reason to believe the note was forged and intended to use it as genuine. Furthermore, the court held that an expert report from the State Bank of Pakistan tendered through the investigating officer without examining the currency officer is inadmissible under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does mere possession of a forged currency note constitute an offence under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of knowledge or intention?
- What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to establish an offence under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a State Bank of Pakistan expert report regarding forged currency admissible in evidence when tendered solely through the investigating officer without producing the currency officer?
- Does the onus lie on the prosecution to prove that the accused intended to use counterfeit currency notes as genuine?
- JAMAL KHAN Versus SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT2015 MLD 972 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. BIBI ZOHRA Versus HABIB-UR-REHMAN2015 MLD 1807 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-07-16Read full judgment →
- Haji WAHID BAKHSH Versus AHMED2013 MLD 1039 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD2012 MLD 63 · Balochistan High Court · 2011-08-19Read full judgment →
- Mullah GUL MUHAMMAD Versus State2012 MLD 401 · Balochistan High Court · 2011-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 322 and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where numerous victims died or suffered injuries due to suffocation while being trafficked in a container. The core legal question is whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity and criminal involvement of the appellant, given that he was not named in the initial FIR and no identification parade was conducted during the investigation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant to the crime, noting that the trial court relied solely on in-court identification by witnesses who were previously unfamiliar with the accused. The Court emphasized that when an accused is not named in the FIR, an identification parade is a mandatory procedural safeguard against false implication. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the lack of corroborative evidence and the failure to conduct an identification parade created reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Is an identification parade mandatory when an accused is not named in the FIR?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of in-court identification by witnesses who were previously unfamiliar with the accused?
- Does the failure to conduct an identification parade create a reasonable doubt requiring the acquittal of the accused?