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.

• ABDUL GHANI Versus REHMAT ALI1972 PLD 114 · Board of Revenue, PunjabRead full judgment →
• MIR AHMED AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER1972 PLD 109 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1972-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus TALIB1972 PLD 107 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1971-12-30Read full judgment →
• AKBAR ALI Versus THE STATE1972 PLD 103 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1972-03-28Read full judgment →
• FAZAL DAD Versus THE STATE1972 PLD 102 · Board of Revenue, PunjabRead full judgment →
• GHULAM ALI Versus THE STATE1972 PLD 100 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1971-12-30Read full judgment →
• Malik ABDUL RAHIM KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2025 PLD 98 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
• ABDUL WALI Versus State2025 PLD 72 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-06-10
  common intentionconstructive liabilitycriminal appealmurder convictionjudicial reasoningremandSection 302 PPCSection 34 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants for the murder of Ain-ud-Din. The trial court initially charged the appellants under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (common intention) but subsequently convicted them based on individual liability, while simultaneously noting mitigating circumstances suggesting a lack of prior intention. The High Court found the trial court's judgment legally deficient for failing to provide a definite finding regarding the applicability of Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 versus individual liability, thereby violating Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that a judgment must be lucid, complete, and self-contained, particularly when addressing constructive liability. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court emphasized that trial courts must render definite findings on common intention or common object at the conclusion of the trial. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to re-write the judgment within two months, strictly adhering to the guidelines regarding the application of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the necessity of judicial reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment that fails to specify points of determination and reasoning violate Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court required to provide a definite finding regarding the applicability of Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, when charging multiple accused for a crime?
  • Can a trial court convict accused persons on the basis of individual liability after charging them for an offence committed in furtherance of common intention?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a trial court judgment when determining the application of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• JUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Versus FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (FIA) through Director General, Islamabad2025 PLD 71 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-08-22Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DAD Versus MAQBOOL AHMED2025 PLD 68 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus FOUZIA NAWAZ2025 PLD 60 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LUQMAN KAKAR Versus QUETTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2025 PLD 54 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAFIA Versus SABIT ALI2025 PLD 49 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• IKRAM-UL-HAQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Quetta2025 PLD 170 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-07-22Read full judgment →
• SHAKAR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ALI2025 PLD 167 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
• Syed INAMULLAH Versus Syed MUHAMMAD WASEEM2025 PLD 160 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus GHULAM HAIDER2025 PLD 152 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-12Read full judgment →
• SABIRA ASAD Versus SAAD BIN ABDULLAH2025 PLD 149 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-02-02Read full judgment →
• The SECRETARY B&R DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA Versus Sardar SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN JOGEZAI2025 PLD 140 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
• NAIMATULLAH ACHAKZAI, ADVOCATE Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan2025 PLD 135 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
• AMINULLAH Versus KHALIL UR REHMAN2025 PLD 127 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL JAMI Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan2025 PLD 121 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-17Read full judgment →
• UMER KHAYAM JOGEZAI Versus MUMTAZ2025 PLD 118 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-15Read full judgment →
• SAEED AHMED Versus BIBI KHOURD2025 PLD 113 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIA2025 PLD 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-08-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN SWATI Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BALOCHISTAN2024 PLD 62 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-19
  quashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courtabuse of processdouble jeopardySection 196 CrPCcognizance of offencesuccessive FIRs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal quashment petitions filed by the petitioner seeking the annulment of multiple FIRs registered against him at different police stations for similar alleged offenses involving statements against state institutions. The core legal questions were whether the police could register such FIRs without the mandatory authorization required by law, and whether the registration of multiple FIRs for the same alleged offense is permissible. The Court held that the FIRs were illegal and void ab initio because they were registered by private individuals without the mandatory prior order or authorization from the Federal or Provincial Government, as required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court held that the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident constitutes an abuse of the process of law and violates the principle against double jeopardy. The key principles laid down are that penal laws must be strictly interpreted, that statutory requirements for government authorization for prosecution must be strictly followed, and that the registration of successive FIRs for the same offense is prohibited.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR without waiting for the trial court to pass an order under Section 249-A or 265-K?
  • Is the registration of an FIR for an offense under Chapter VI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 valid without prior authorization from the Federal or Provincial Government as required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the registration of multiple FIRs for the same alleged offense constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  • Are the decisions and legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan binding on all subordinate courts and state organs under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• QUDRATULLAH Versus BAKHT MUHAMMAD alias QARI2022 PLD 30 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
• TAJ MUHAMMAD Versus NOOR-UD-DIN2021 PLD 97 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus State2021 PLD 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-03
  negligent escapecriminal negligenceburden of proofbenefit of doubtdepartmental inquiry reportcriminal revisioncustodial negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which convicted the petitioner under Section 223 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for negligently allowing a prisoner to escape from custody. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the element of negligence required for conviction under Section 223, and whether a conviction could be sustained based primarily on a departmental inquiry report rather than independent evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's specific negligence or that he was the custodian of the lock-up. The Court emphasized that mere presence on duty does not constitute negligence, which requires concrete evidence. Furthermore, it held that departmental inquiry reports are not binding and cannot replace independent judicial evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution must prove its case on its own strength without relying on the weaknesses of the defense. The principle established is that in criminal proceedings, negligence must be proven through definite, concrete evidence, and the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence on duty constitute negligence under Section 223 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a departmental inquiry report?
  • Is independent corroboration required to convict an accused when co-accused facing similar allegations have been acquitted?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish negligence in criminal proceedings for a public servant?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL Versus State2021 PLD 55 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-11
  transfer of offendersforeign convictionsentence adaptationprohibition orderpauper applicantinherent jurisdictionremission and commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous jail application filed by a pauper applicant who was convicted by a court in the Islamic Republic of Iran for possessing alcoholic drinks and subsequently transferred to Pakistan under a bilateral agreement. The core legal question concerned the adaptation and enforcement of the foreign sentence, specifically the heavy fine, to make it compatible with the laws of Pakistan pursuant to the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 and the Inter-State Agreement. The Balochistan High Court held that under Section 9(4) of the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002 and Articles 8 and 9 of the Agreement, the court is empowered to adapt a foreign sentence to make it compatible with Pakistani law, specifically aligning it with Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The court laid down the principle that while enforcing transferred sentences, the receiving state may adapt sentences that are incompatible with its domestic laws through a court order, ensuring the adapted sentence corresponds as far as practicable without aggravating the nature or duration of the original punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court in Pakistan adapt a sentence imposed by a foreign jurisdiction to make it compatible with domestic laws upon the transfer of an offender?
  • How does a Pakistani court handle a foreign sentence whose nature or duration is incompatible with the laws of Pakistan?
  • Does the transfer of an offender from a foreign state allow the receiving state to convert a foreign sentence of imprisonment and fine into a pecuniary sanction?
  • Under which statutory provisions can the Balochistan High Court exercise its jurisdiction to adapt a transferred offender's sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAJID TAREEN Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2021 PLD 172 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-19Read full judgment →
• CHAIRMAN, NAB Versus MUNAWAR MASIH2020 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09
  plea bargainaccountability courtNational Accountability Bureaustatutory procedureacquittalcorruptionmisappropriationjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an Accountability Court order that unilaterally converted an accused's application under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 into a plea bargain and accepted it. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to initiate a plea bargain or fix liability independently of the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau. The High Court held that the trial court acted without jurisdiction. Under Section 25(b), National Accountability Ordinance 1999, the power to accept a plea bargain and determine liability rests exclusively with the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, subject to court approval. The trial court cannot bypass this statutory mechanism. The Court established the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for an act, it must be performed strictly in that manner, prohibiting alternative methods. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in corruption cases, trial courts must exercise extreme caution when considering acquittals under Section 265-K, ensuring the prosecution is granted a full opportunity to present evidence before concluding the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court unilaterally convert an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 into a plea bargain?
  • Does the trial court have the authority to fix the amount of liability for a plea bargain under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Is the approval of the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau a mandatory prerequisite for a valid plea bargain under Section 25(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Should a trial court exercise caution when considering an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in corruption cases?
  Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN Versus State2019 PLD 16 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-07-23
  murderanti-terrorismred-handed arrestrelated witnesspolice official testimonyidentification paradeenhancement of sentencemitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2015 filed by the convicts against their conviction and sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Constitutional Petition No.458 of 2015 filed by the victim for enhancement of sentence to capital punishment. The prosecution case is that the appellants opened indiscriminate firing on a vehicle, resulting in the death of a religious scholar and injuries to another, and were apprehended red-handed at the spot by police officials performing security duties. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and police witnesses, the necessity of an identification parade when accused are caught on the spot, and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through cogent ocular and medical evidence, and that testimony of police officials and related witnesses is reliable in the absence of mala fides. The court dismissed the appeal and modified the sentence to include a fine alongside life imprisonment due to mitigating circumstances of lack of premeditation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Is the testimony of police officials alone sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration when they are natural witnesses of the crime?
  • Whether an identification parade is legally necessary when the accused are apprehended red-handed at the spot shortly after the occurrence?
  • Does the absence of proof of motive affect a criminal case where the ocular testimony is confidence-inspiring and unimpeachable?
  • Whether lack of premeditation constitutes a mitigating circumstance precluding the imposition of capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• THE BASE COMMANDER PAKISTAN AIR FORCE, P.A.F. BASE, QUETTA Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Member Board of Revenue Balochistan2019 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-25Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus State2017 PLD 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-06-23
  unsound mindcriminal revisionmental fitness to stand trialbipolar disordermedical boardinsanity pleaSection 465 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the trial court's dismissal of an application seeking a medical board examination for the petitioner, who claimed to be of unsound mind and incapable of defending himself during trial. The core legal question was whether the trial court was obligated under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to conduct a formal inquiry and refer the accused to a medical board upon a mere request. The Court held that an inquiry is not mandatory simply because an accused requests it; rather, it is required only when the court, through its own observation or other factors, perceives the accused is incapable of making a defense. The Court affirmed that the trial judge, having personally examined the petitioner and found him mentally fit, acted correctly in rejecting the application. Furthermore, the Court established that a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder does not automatically equate to legal 'unsoundness of mind' under the law, and the burden of proving insanity at the time of the offense rests on the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court legally obligated to refer an accused to a medical board merely because the accused files an application claiming to be of unsound mind?
  • Does a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder automatically render an accused a person of 'unsound mind' incapable of standing trial?
  • At what point in time must an accused's unsoundness of mind be established to claim the benefit of Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the standard for a trial court to determine if an inquiry into an accused's mental capacity is necessary under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus ABDUL SALAM2016 PLD 76 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-03-28Read full judgment →
• JAMAL UD DIN Versus Syed FAIZULLAH SHAH2016 PLD 44 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-01-05Read full judgment →
• HAMAYUN SHAH Versus SECRETARY HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2016 PLD 21 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• NAJEEBULLAH Versus DIRECTOR NADRA, BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA2016 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-25Read full judgment →
• MIR BAZ MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus NAZ BIBI2014 PLD 71 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-20Read full judgment →
• NOOR UDDIN KHAN TAREEN Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary2014 PLD 132 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus AMANULLAH2014 PLD 128 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-12-19Read full judgment →
• REHMATULLAH Versus A. HAMEEDULLAH2013 PLD 52 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-10-24Read full judgment →
• CHAKAR KHAN Versus AZAD KHAN2011 PLD 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2011-01-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus State2011 PLD 18 · Balochistan High Court · 2011-02-08
  unlicensed possession of armsballistic expert reportcriminal appealanti-terrorismprosecution evidenceinvestigation omission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellant under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance and the Explosive Substances Act for the unlicensed possession of a pistol and explosive materials. The core legal question was whether the failure to seal the recovered weapon at the spot and the failure to send it to a ballistic expert to verify its working condition vitiated the conviction. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court reasoned that the statutory prohibition against unlicensed possession of arms applies regardless of whether the weapon is in working condition. Consequently, the investigating officer's omission to send the weapon for expert analysis did not constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that the offense of unlicensed possession of arms under the relevant Ordinance is complete upon proof of possession without a valid license, and the operational status of the weapon is not a prerequisite for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to send a recovered firearm to a ballistic expert for testing render a conviction for unlicensed possession of arms unsustainable?
  • Is the operational condition of a weapon a necessary element for the offense of unlicensed possession of arms under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965?
  • Can a conviction for unlicensed possession of arms be maintained if the weapon was not sealed at the time of recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus ABDUL HAMEED2010 PLD 33 · Balochistan High Court · 2009-11-17Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus TAWEEZ KHAN2009 PLD 7 · Balochistan High Court · 2008-11-25
  acquittal appealsection 265-K Cr.P.C.abductionminor consentkidnapping from lawful guardianshippremature acquittaldelay in F.I.R.remand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Loralai, whereby respondents were acquitted under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving the alleged abduction of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused at a premature stage based on delay in the F.I.R., reliance on an unexamined statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., and without determining the victim's age where consent was legally immaterial. The Balochistan High Court held that the acquittal was premature, based on misread and inadmissible evidence, and rendered without deciding pending applications for summoning crucial evidence regarding the victim's age. The Court set aside the acquittal order and remanded the matter for fresh proceedings in accordance with law, laying down that powers under section 265-K Cr.P.C. should not be exercised arbitrarily to stifle prosecution, and that the age of a minor victim must be determined before considering consent in kidnapping charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained when passed at a premature stage without recording essential prosecution evidence?
  • Can a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as a substantive piece of evidence for acquitting an accused without the witness being examined in court?
  • Is the consent of a minor victim below sixteen years of age material in a charge of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a trial court have a legal obligation under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses essential for the just decision of a case before deciding an acquittal application?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAH FAISAL Versus State2009 PLD 40 · Balochistan High Court · 2009-05-18
  Chemical Examiner reportadmissibility of evidenceFederal Narcotics Testing Laboratorygovernment analystControl of Narcotic Substances ActForensic Science Laboratory
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before a Full Bench of the Balochistan High Court to resolve conflicting judgments regarding the admissibility of a Chemical Examiner's report furnished by the Forensic Science Laboratory Balochistan under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether reports submitted by the Provincial Forensic Science Laboratory and its Chemical Examiners are admissible in evidence under the Act when specific notifications are contested. The Full Bench held that provincial narcotics testing laboratories were duly declared as Federal Narcotics Testing Laboratories pursuant to Notification No. S.R.O. 596(I)/97 under section 34 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that Chemical Examiners notified under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are government analysts whose reports are admissible. The court laid down the principle that the provisions of section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are parallel and affirmative in nature, and in the absence of an express exclusion, the Chemical Examiner's report remains fully admissible in evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Are reports submitted by the Provincial Forensic Science Laboratory admissible under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the notification of Chemical Examiners under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 make their reports admissible in narcotics cases?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 impliedly repeal section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding the admissibility of expert reports?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALIQ Versus State2009 PLD 33 · Balochistan High Court · 2008-10-27
  spousal abusesuicidealteration of chargeQatl-i-Amdcausing hurtburden of proofdomestic violencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife, who died from burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellant beat the deceased and set her on fire. The defense contended that the deceased committed suicide following a domestic dispute. Upon review, the Court found no direct evidence establishing that the appellant intentionally caused the death of the deceased. However, medical evidence confirmed the presence of various physical injuries, including bite marks and bruises, which the appellant failed to explain. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder (Qatl-i-Amd). Instead, based on the established physical injuries, the Court altered the conviction to Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to two years of rigorous imprisonment and Daman. The judgment emphasizes the difficulty of proving domestic violence cases and recommends legislative reform to address spousal cruelty and abetment to suicide.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court alter a conviction from murder under Section 302(b) to causing hurt under Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution fails to prove the murder charge?
  • Is the presence of unexplained physical injuries on a deceased person sufficient to sustain a conviction for causing hurt when the charge of murder is not proven?
  • Does the failure of an accused to explain injuries found on the body of a deceased spouse allow the court to infer guilt for physical abuse?
  Read full judgment →
• NABI DAD Versus REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, G.H.Q. RAWALPINDI2009 PLD 27 · Balochistan High Court · 2008-12-15Read full judgment →
• BROWN GYMKHANA through President Versus AL-REHMAN HOSPITAL through Managing Partner2009 PLD 21 · Balochistan High Court · 2008-12-05Read full judgment →
• EHSANULLAH REKI Versus Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) ABDUL QADIR BALOCH2009 PLD 16 · Balochistan High Court · 2008-09-10Read full judgment →
• Haji ABDUL KHALIQ Versus MULLA MUHAMMAD2009 PLD 13 · Balochistan High Court · 2008-12-05Read full judgment →
• JAGDESH KUMAR alias JAGOO Versus State2009 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2008-09-11
  retracted confessionpolice disclosureArticle 40 Qanun-e-Shahadatcriminal appealindependent corroborationdefiling Holy Qurancustodial torture
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for defiling the Holy Quran and a shrine. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based solely on retracted confessional statements and alleged disclosures made to the police. The Balochistan High Court held that the convictions were unsustainable and acquitted the appellants. The Court established that disclosures made to the police are inadmissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, unless they lead to the discovery of new facts not previously known to the police. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that retracted confessions, particularly those recorded after an unexplained delay and amidst credible allegations of police torture, require strong independent corroboration to support a conviction. Because the confessions in this case were contradictory, lacked independent corroboration, and were tainted by the circumstances of their procurement, the Court ruled that it would be unsafe to maintain the convictions, thereby setting aside the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Are disclosures made to police admissible if they do not lead to the discovery of new facts?
  • Does a retracted confession require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Can a conviction be based on confessional statements that are contradictory to each other?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a confession cast doubt on its voluntariness?
  Read full judgment →
• NOOR AHMED Versus Mst. HANIFA2008 PLD 33 · Balochistan High Court · 2008-07-02Read full judgment →
• Sheikh ABDUL HAKEEM Versus SHAMSUDDIN2008 PLD 14 · Balochistan High Court · 2007-08-31Read full judgment →
• WAZIR KHAN Versus SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, SIBI2007 PLD 94 · Balochistan High Court · 2007-06-05Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJEED Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LASBELA AT HUB2007 PLD 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2006-09-11Read full judgment →
• SAMANDER KHAN Versus Haji ABDUL REHMAN2007 PLD 72 · Balochistan High Court · 2006-03-10Read full judgment →
• PANDOK Versus KHODA IQBAL2007 PLD 44 · Balochistan High Court · 2006-12-01Read full judgment →
• State Versus ASMATULLAH2007 PLD 12 · Balochistan High Court · 2006-11-13
  criminal appealconfessional statementretracted confessioncapital punishmentmedical evidencepointation evidenceAnti-Terrorism Actreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellant under sections 364-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 7-A and 21-I of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, read with section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellant's guilt through a retracted confessional statement, pointation evidence, and circumstantial evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It ruled that the confessional statement was unreliable due to the significant delay in recording it, the lack of judicial satisfaction regarding its voluntary nature, and its contradiction with medical evidence regarding the time of death. Furthermore, the Court held that pointation evidence is inadmissible where no new facts are discovered, and identification of the bag was deemed implausible. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that a conviction on a capital charge cannot be based on a retracted, involuntary, or factually inconsistent confession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on a retracted confessional statement that contradicts medical evidence?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible if it does not lead to the discovery of a new fact?
  • What is the legal obligation of a Magistrate before recording a confessional statement to ensure its voluntary nature?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain a significant delay in recording a confession render the statement doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Forest, Quetta Versus AYUB2006 PLD 4 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-20Read full judgment →
• NAZAR ALI Versus Malik MUHAMMAD QAZZAFI2006 PLD 23 · Balochistan High Court · 2004-12-15Read full judgment →
• ABDUL QAYYUM Versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT through District Executive Officer (Revenue)2006 PLD 18 · Balochistan High Court · 2004-07-12Read full judgment →
• C & W DEPARTMENT through Secretary Versus Messrs KHAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through owner Rehmatullah Khan2005 PLD 36 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• AHMED JAN Versus State2005 PLD 110 · Balochistan High Court · 2005-03-05
  criminal appealunexplained delay in FIRbenefit of doubtjuvenile justiceeyewitness credibilitypolice negligencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically addressing the impact of an unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the credibility of eyewitness testimony. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the alleged eyewitnesses, who were present during the initial police inspection of the body, failed to disclose the incident at that time. The Court emphasized that while delay in lodging an FIR is not inherently fatal, it becomes significant when the prosecution's evidence is weak and the circumstances suggest false implication. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The judgment reiterates that where prosecution evidence is doubtful and the police fail to perform statutory duties regarding cognizable offenses, the balance of doubt must tilt in favor of the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate a criminal conviction?
  • When does a delay in lodging an FIR become fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence is weak and the police fail to register a cognizable offense upon initial notice?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus HUSSAIN2004 PLD 62 · Balochistan High Court · 2003-09-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 31 · Balochistan High Court · 2003-07-04
  culpable homicidedying declarationjudicial confessionretracted confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, convicting the appellants under section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentencing them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with payment of Diyat. The core legal questions involved the credibility of delayed eyewitness testimonies, the reliability of an alleged dying declaration, the evidentiary value of a retracted and contradictory judicial confession, and the failure of the prosecution to corroborate physical recoveries. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was tainted with doubt, fraught with material contradictions, and failed to connect the accused with the commission of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were accordingly set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of eyewitness testimonies that suffer from unexplained delays in recording and material contradictions?
  • Whether a retracted judicial confession that contradicts the prosecution's case and medical evidence can be relied upon for conviction?
  • Is a dying declaration reliable when the medical evidence shows the deceased was in a condition that precluded effective communication?
  • What is the evidentiary impact when the prosecution fails to send the alleged weapon of offense and blood-stained articles to a chemical examiner?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL REHMAN Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 118 · Balochistan High Court
  narcoticspointation recoverypolice custodydiscovery statementillegal possessioncontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Narcotics, Pishin, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant was in custody for the purposes of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 at the time of making a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of narcotics, and whether the prosecution was required to independently prove ownership or possession of the house from which the contraband was recovered. The Balochistan High Court held that a suspect apprehended or under surveillance by law enforcement, even prior to formal arrest or registration of a case, is considered to be in custody, rendering information leading to a discovery admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Consequently, where recovery is effected upon the accused's pointation, formal proof of ownership or exclusive possession of the premises is not strictly required. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who is suspected and apprehended by law enforcement without a formal arrest or registered case is in custody for the purposes of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Is a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of contraband admissible in evidence when made by a suspect under police surveillance?
  • Does the prosecution need to prove ownership or formal possession of a house when narcotics are recovered directly pursuant to the pointation and disclosure of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (R) NADIR ALI Versus THE STATE2003 PLD 77 · Balochistan High Court · 2002-11-04
  accountabilityillegal assetsburden of proofNAB Ordinancecriminal appealbenefit of doubtcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 for holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully discharged its initial burden of establishing a reasonable case of corruption and asset accumulation through illegal means before the burden shifted to the accused. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution must first prove preliminary facts and make out a reasonable case satisfying the conscience of the court before any adverse presumption can be drawn or the onus shifts to the accused under the NAB Ordinance. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove corrupt practices or rebut the appellant's plausible explanations regarding government loans, property sales, and leasehold constructions, the court gave the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The key legal principle laid down is that under accountability laws, the initial burden rests squarely on the prosecution to bring on record sufficient material showing acquisition of property through corrupt or dishonest means before the accused is called upon to disprove the presumption of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an adverse presumption can be drawn against an accused under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 merely upon the filing of a reference by NAB authorities?
  • Does the initial burden of proof lie on the prosecution to establish a reasonable case of corruption and corrupt practices before the onus shifts to the accused?
  • Can a conviction for holding assets beyond known sources of income be sustained on the basis of a rough and external property assessment report without proof of corrupt acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE2003 PLD 60 · Balochistan High Court · 2002-10-12
  Qatl-e-Amdsolitary eye-witnessabsconsioncriminal appealcorroborative evidencelife imprisonmentmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a solitary eye-witness, who was a minor at the time of the incident, and whether his testimony could sustain a conviction without independent corroboration, alongside the evidentiary value of the appellant's seven-year absconsion. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. It affirmed that the testimony of a solitary witness, even if related to the deceased, is sufficient for conviction if it is intrinsically credible and inspires confidence. The Court further held that the appellant's unexplained absconsion for seven years provided significant corroborative evidence of his guilt, which, when combined with consistent medical evidence regarding the close-range gunshot wound, sufficiently established the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that the quality, not the quantity, of evidence determines the sufficiency of proof in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness?
  • Does the unexplained long-term absconsion of an accused serve as corroborative evidence of guilt?
  • Is the testimony of a minor eye-witness inherently unreliable in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• RAJ BIBI Versus SHAHZADI2003 PLD 53 · Balochistan High Court · 2002-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHEREEN GUL Versus JAMEEL AHMED PARACHA2003 PLD 142 · Balochistan High Court · 2003-07-03Read full judgment →
• PEHLWAN AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER2001 PLD 88 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-04-20
  honour killingSiahkarigrave and sudden provocationQatl-i-AmdDiyatconfessional statementTazircriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge for the double murder of Kandera and Mst. Gul Hira under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant admitted the killings but claimed they were committed under grave and sudden provocation due to 'Siahkari' (honour killing). The core legal questions were whether the accused’s statement should be accepted in its entirety and what offense was established given the plea of provocation. The Court held that in the absence of other substantive evidence, the accused's statement must be accepted in its entirety. However, the Court rejected the defense of 'honour killing,' affirming that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands. Consequently, the conviction for the murder of Kandera was converted to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in twenty-five years of rigorous imprisonment. The conviction for the murder of his wife was converted to Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, imposing fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment and Diyat. The judgment establishes that 'honour killing' does not justify mitigation of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Should the statement of an accused be accepted in its entirety when no other substantive evidence is available?
  • Does an allegation of 'Siahkari' or 'honour killing' justify the mitigation of a sentence for Qatl-i-Amd?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the accused claims grave and sudden provocation?
  • When is a conviction for Qatl-i-Amd liable to be converted to Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MST. KISHWAR REHMAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2001 PLD 78 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-04-26Read full judgment →
• DR. MRS. BUSHRA MAGSI Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHAL MAGSI AT GANDAWAH2001 PLD 72 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAKRIA KANSI Versus DR. BASHIR AHMED2001 PLD 40 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-10-11Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ AHME Versus ARBAB ALI AHMED2000 PLD 91 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-03-27Read full judgment →
• SAWALI Versus GUL MUHAMMAD2000 PLD 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD USMAN Versus MUHAMMAD SHOAIB2000 PLD 40 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-09-29Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM Versus RETURNING OFFICER/AC, HUB AT HUB1999 PLD 78 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUSSARAT ARA KHANUM Versus UMAID ALI1999 PLD 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• FATEH ALI KHAN UMRANI Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKSITAN ISLAMABAD1999 PLD 106 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-07-08Read full judgment →
• GOHAR KHAN AND COMPANY Versus ABDUL QADIR1998 PLD 7 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
• RAJINDER KUMAR Versus DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, CIVIL WORKS, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SIBI CAMP OFFIC1998 PLD 50 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• JAN MUHAMMA Versus ABDUL REHMAN , Ex parte.1998 PLD 34 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KAQIR Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM , Memo1998 PLD 12 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
• AAMO KHAN Versus SAT GUL1997 PLD 99 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• JAFFAR KHAN MANDOKHAIL Versus RETURNING OFFICER1997 PLD 115 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MALIK Versus SADARUDDIN1996 PLD 9 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM Versus ZAR BIBI1996 PLD 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-04Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAQUE Versus THE STATE Muhammad Zafar , Syed Ayaz Zahoor1995 PLD 83 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• TAHIR HUSSAIN MEHMMODI Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 76 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN Versus SHAFIUDDIN1995 PLD 29 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• KHALID PERVAIZ KHAN TAREEN Versus DEPUT COMMISSIONER/REGISTRAR1994 PLD 9 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-09-22Read full judgment →
• AFZAL KHAN Versus ABDUL FAHEEM1994 PLD 26 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• SALMAN ALI & CO. Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN1994 PLD 13 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-09-22Read full judgment →
• ARSHAD MAHMOOD Versus PAK KASHMIR MACHES FACTORY, MIRPUR1993 PLD 70 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ BEGUM Versus ALLAUDIN1993 PLD 37 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 118 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →