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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Muhammad Idrees vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court and other2020 PLJ Lahore 43, 2019 P Cr. L J 516 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-19
  anti-terrorism jurisdictionprivate motivearmed forces victimterrorism act interpretationtransfer of casemens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the petitioner's application to remove terrorism charges (Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997) from a criminal case. The core legal question is whether the murder of a member of the Armed Forces automatically invokes the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 6(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, regardless of the motive. The Court held that the mere status of the victim as a member of the Armed Forces does not automatically trigger terrorism jurisdiction. The ratio is that for Section 6(2)(n) to apply, the violence must occur while the victim is discharging official duties, or the act must be designed to create fear and insecurity. Where the propelling force behind the occurrence is a private motive—in this case, a personal grudge stemming from a cricket match quarrel—the incident does not constitute terrorism. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the transfer of the case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the murder of a member of the Armed Forces automatically bring a case within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can an incident motivated by a private grudge be tried as an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What is the scope of Section 6(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 regarding violence against members of the Armed Forces?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Regional Police Officer, Sheikhupura etc2019 LHC 1759, 2019 PLJ Lahore 502 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees and others vs National Accountability Bureu2019 YLR 1878 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrar Khan and another vs Capital Development Authority2019 [M] C.L.R. 657, 2019 MLD 276 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim Khan vs District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner2019 SC AJK 122 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim Jatoi vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2019 CLC 1801 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and others vs The State2019 MLD 763 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16
  kidnapping for ransomanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRidentification at nightcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence for murder, kidnapping for ransom, and anti-terrorism offences passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, alongside others, abducted three persons and subsequently caused their deaths when ransom was not paid. Upon evaluating the evidence, the Sindh High Court observed significant flaws, including an unplausible delay in lodging the FIR, weak identification of the accused under vehicle headlights at night, contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and key witnesses, non-production of the vehicle, and failure to establish the ransom calls through phone records. Furthermore, a police witness conceded that the accused persons present in court were not the ones encountered. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants and ordering their immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification of accused persons at night under the light of a vehicle constitutes reliable evidence without corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained and considerable delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when material contradictions and omissions exist between the testimony of the complainant and eyewitnesses?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a police encounter witness whose testimony fails to correctly identify the accused persons standing trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1378 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-01
  criminal jail appealmurderbenefit of the doubtinterested witnesseschance witnessesidentificationdelay in FIRballistic reportrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the credibility of interested and chance witnesses, the reliability of identification via electric bulbs without recovery of the bulbs, the consequences of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the failure to comply with mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, lack of independent corroboration, delayed FIR indicating deliberation, and non-compliance with statutory procedures. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitting them of the charge. The key legal principles established include that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that interested testimony without independent corroboration and unverified identification sources are insufficient to sustain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of close relatives as eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder case?
  • Does an unverified source of identification, such as electric bulbs not taken into possession during investigation, create a doubt regarding the identity of the assailant?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR when the police station is in close proximity?
  • Is non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of search and witness requirements under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibraheem vs The State and another2020 YLR 1662, 2019 LHC 3729 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-30
  test identification paradebenefit of the doubtanti-terrorismdacoitycriminal appealinadmissible recoveryinjured witnesspolice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for offences including dacoity, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, and under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of the ocular testimony of an injured witness, the legal validity and evidentiary value of the test identification parade conducted in violation of statutory and judicial guidelines, and the admissibility of recoveries made in contravention of mandatory provisions. The Lahore High Court held that the test identification parade was fundamentally flawed due to a joint lineup, lack of matching features from the FIR, and failure of the magistrate to address objections properly; furthermore, the recoveries suffered from illegalities under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where the primary ocular account is unreliable and test identification parades fail to meet established evidentiary standards, corroborative evidence like recoveries and motive loses its significance, entitling the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness conclusively establish their truthfulness and credibility?
  • What is the legal effect of conducting a joint test identification parade for multiple accused persons simultaneously?
  • Can recoveries made in violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be used as incriminating evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of motive and recoveries when the primary ocular account is disbelieved by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussan vs The State & another2020 YLR 360, 2019 PHC 224 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Qureshi vs Mrs. Mumtaz Muzakkir and others2019 SHC 78 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and another vs Akbar Ali and others2019 CLC 726 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 17 others vs Abdul Hameed and 4 others2021 [M] C L R 406, 2021 PLJ Quetta 18, 2019 PLD Balochistan 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Khan vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 472 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-09-25
  post-arrest bailcyber terrorismfurther inquirysocial mediaanti-state activitiesExit Control ListPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of disseminating anti-State material on social media, charged under sections 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and sections 500 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the investigation was concluded and the identity of the user behind the social media accounts remained a matter of evidentiary proof. The Court held that while the alleged material was derogatory, the actual usage of the social media accounts by the petitioner required corroboration through independent evidence during trial. Consequently, the Court determined that the case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry.' Emphasizing the principle that for bail purposes, the lesser sentence is considered, and noting that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail, subject to the surrender of the petitioner's passport and placement on the Exit Control List to prevent flight risk.

  Questions settled

  • Is the question of whether a specific individual operated a social media account used for posting derogatory content a matter of further inquiry at the bail stage?
  • Should the lesser sentence be taken into account for the purposes of granting bail?
  • Can a court impose conditions such as the surrender of a passport and placement on the Exit Control List when granting bail in cybercrime cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Tahir vs Government of Punjab, Services and General Administration Department through Chief Secretary Punjab Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 4 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 535 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-15
  constitutional petitionterms and conditions of serviceexclusive jurisdictionservice tribunalalternate remedycompulsory retirementpolice officer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Inspector in the Punjab Police, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to challenge an order of compulsory retirement passed against him by the Competent Authority. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable in service matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The court held that matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan, including disciplinary matters, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Administrative Courts or Tribunals, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court. Furthermore, the availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy through a departmental appeal and the Punjab Service Tribunal renders a writ petition incompetent. The court established the principle that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 cannot be invoked to bypass specialized tribunals and statutory forums created specifically for the expeditious resolution of service disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain service matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in matters falling within the exclusive domain of administrative courts or tribunals?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained when an alternate, adequate, and efficacious remedy is available under a special law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Tahir vs Government of Punjab, Services and General Administration Department through Chief Secretary and 4 others2019 PLJ Lahore 124 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasnain alias Hasni vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 119 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-10
  pre-arrest bailtheftdelay in FIRfoot trackerinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 267 registered under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jahanian, District Khanewal, relating to an allegation of theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including delay in FIR registration and lack of direct evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the application should be allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail confirmed. The court based its decision on the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of direct evidence or specified time of occurrence, reliance on an unverified foot tracker statement, the petitioner joining the investigation without any recovery made from him, and the absence of any misuse of the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay?
  • Is the statement of a foot tracker without formal qualification sufficient direct evidence to deny bail?
  • Does joining the investigation and lack of recovery from the accused support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim and another vs The State and others2019 MLD 932, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1243, 2019 KLR Criminal Cases 419 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14
  Qatl-e-Amdbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular evidencemedical evidencerecovery proceedingscriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of the ocular account and the validity of the recovery proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt. The Court found the eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' whose presence was doubtful, as they failed to explain their presence, made dishonest improvements to their statements, and provided testimony inconsistent with medical evidence—specifically regarding the absence of blackening on wounds and the number of injuries. Furthermore, the Court noted the failure to associate independent witnesses for recoveries, violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the lack of proof for the alleged motive. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is inconsistent with medical evidence and witnesses are unreliable, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related witnesses who are also chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does a material inconsistency between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries and presence of blackening warrant the rejection of the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to associate independent witnesses during recovery proceedings under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the benefit of doubt to be extended to an accused as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haseen Khan Afridi vs National Accountability Bureau2019 KLR Criminal Cases 405, 2019 PLD Balochistan 9, 2019 PLJ Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs East and West Insurance Company Limited and others2019 CLD 500 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon Abbasi vs Jamil Rabbani2019 YLR 671 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State2019 SHC 568 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller and another2019 CLC 1777 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs II-Additional District Judge2019 SHC 246 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Additional District Judge and others2019 CLC 108 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and others vs Chairman National Accountability2019 P Cr. L J 1277 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-14
  post-arrest bailmedical bailwhite collar crimeNational Accountability Ordinancemisuse of authorityvoluntary returnplea bargain
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the post-arrest bail petitions of four individuals accused in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference involving corruption, misuse of authority, and financial loss to the state exchequer regarding advertising contracts. The core legal questions were whether employees of private companies are subject to the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999; whether an accused can be granted bail by depositing the alleged misappropriated amount; and the criteria for granting bail on medical grounds. The court held that employees of private companies are not exempt from the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, as 'person' includes private individuals. It further held that depositing alleged liability does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, as this would circumvent plea bargain provisions. Regarding medical bail, the court affirmed that the test is whether the ailment cannot be treated in jail and whether continued detention is hazardous to life. The court granted bail to two minor players, dismissed the bail of a major beneficiary, and denied medical bail to the former Minister, while ordering that he be transported to a hospital for necessary treatment under guard.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of private companies subject to the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can an accused person be granted bail solely by offering to deposit the alleged liability with the National Accountability Bureau?
  • What is the legal test for granting bail on medical grounds under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the deposit of alleged misappropriated funds by an accused pending trial circumvent the statutory provisions for plea bargains under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and 2 others vs Muhammad Sadiq and 14 others2019 MLD 846 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-25
  review petitionland acquisitionlimitationreference court jurisdictionconflicting judgmentsequal bench strength
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a review petition against the dismissal of their appeal concerning a land acquisition reference application, which was originally dismissed by the Reference Judge and the High Court for being barred by limitation. The core legal questions involved whether a Reference Judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of limitation despite the matter being referred by the Collector, which bench decision prevails in the event of conflicting judgments of equal strength, and whether a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is subject to limitation. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the review petition, holding that the Reference Court is competent to determine whether a valid reference has been filed within the statutory period of limitation, that in the case of conflicting judgments from benches of equal strength the later judgment holds the field, and that references under Section 30 cannot be filed belatedly without limitation to frustrate finalized awards. The key principle laid down is that courts and tribunals are bound to determine whether a valid, limitation-compliant application has been filed before assuming jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Reference Judge have the jurisdiction to reopen and adjudicate the question of limitation once a land acquisition reference is forwarded by the Collector?
  • Which judicial view must be followed when there are conflicting decisions rendered by benches of equal strength?
  • Is a reference application filed under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 exempt from the rule of limitation or reasonable time?
  • Can a Collector waive objections regarding the statutory period of limitation in land acquisition proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Abbasi vs The State etc2019 LHC 2018 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-11
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealEphedrinecontrolled substanceillegal possessionnarcotic drugsevidentiary infirmities
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following his conviction regarding the alleged misuse of Ephedrine. The prosecution initially alleged the petitioner sold Ephedrine to drug smugglers, yet the trial court admitted no evidence of such sale existed. The trial court subsequently convicted the petitioner for illegal possession, despite no recovery of the substance from his exclusive possession and the lack of a formal government notification declaring Ephedrine a controlled substance under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The High Court observed that the trial court improperly relied on internet search results to classify the substance rather than statutory definitions. Finding that the prosecution failed to establish the misuse of Ephedrine or the manufacturing of illicit drugs, and noting significant evidentiary infirmities in the trial court's judgment, the High Court held that the petitioner made a prima facie case for relief. Consequently, the court suspended the sentence and admitted the petitioner to bail pending the final disposal of his criminal appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for illegal possession of a substance be sustained if the substance was not recovered from the accused's possession?
  • Is a trial court permitted to rely on internet search results to classify a substance as a controlled substance under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the failure of the Federal Government to issue a notification under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 affect the classification of a substance as a controlled drug?
  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court's judgment suffers from significant evidentiary infirmities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghani vs The State2019 MLD 718 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryalibiabductiondelay in recording statementcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ghani, who was charged under Section 365-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in FIR No. 02/2016. The petitioner sought bail after the Sessions Judge, Diamer, dismissed his initial application. The petitioner argued that his involvement was malicious, that he had an alibi, and that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's direct involvement and the gravity of the offence. The Court held that while the plea of alibi was raised for the first time on appeal and could be ignored, the case against the petitioner was one of further inquiry. The Court noted a significant delay in recording the victim's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which contained no incriminating allegations against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing that where evidence is insufficient and delay in recording statements occurs, the case falls under the scope of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be raised for the first time in a bail petition before the High Court or Chief Court if it was not raised before the trial court?
  • Does a significant delay in recording a victim's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for treating a case as one of further inquiry?
  • Is the petitioner entitled to bail when the victim's statement lacks incriminating allegations against him?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil and others vs State and othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1279 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-26
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencemotiveacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside a murder reference and an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular account, medical evidence, and motive, given that ten co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony suffered from material contradictions and dishonest improvements, was irreconcilable with the medical evidence, and was further weakened by an unproven motive and delayed post-mortem, rendering the occurrence unwitnessed. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions and improvements by eye-witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt leading to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular account is irreconcilable with the medical evidence?
  • Whether the failure to produce crucial witnesses of motive weakens the prosecution case?
  • Does a delayed post-mortem examination in an unwitnessed crime indicate consultation and fabrication of a false story?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayaz vs The State2019 SHC 338 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionmurderbenefit of doubtmedical evidencesuicidefalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including motive, an extra-judicial confession, and recovery of a rope—was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court established that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be unbroken and logically connected to the accused; if any link is missing, the case fails. The court reaffirmed that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence requiring strong, independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court emphasized that when a witness is found to have falsely implicated one accused, their testimony against others must be treated with extreme caution and requires strict corroboration. Finally, the court noted that medical evidence indicating a ligature mark absent from the back of the neck was consistent with suicide.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint recovery of a weapon in a criminal trial?
  • Does the absence of a ligature mark on the back of the neck in a strangulation case support a theory of suicide?
  • Can a witness's testimony be relied upon against an accused if the same witness was found to have falsely implicated a co-accused in the same occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal Abbas vs The StatePLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 449, 2019 SCMR 1285, 2019 SCP 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-21
  criminal appealanti-terrorism acttest identification paradeforensic evidencesentence commutationco-accused acquittalrobberymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for murder, attempted murder, and robbery, which had been upheld by the Lahore High Court. The incident involved a robbery at a shop where the appellant allegedly shot and killed one person and injured another. The Supreme Court re-appraised the evidence, finding the prosecution's case against the appellant solid, supported by a test identification parade and forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene. The Court rejected the appellant's plea of false implication due to enmity. Regarding the co-accused's acquittal, the Court held that the principle of 'abundant caution' allowed for the acquittal of one accused without undermining the case against another when roles are distinct. However, the Court set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, ruling that the crime, while violent, was a robbery without the necessary nexus to terrorism as defined in the Act. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, maintaining the other convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically invalidate the conviction of the remaining accused?
  • Does a robbery involving violence necessarily constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on the totality of circumstances in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dost and 3 others vs Circle Officer Anti-Corruption2019 MLD 1469 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and another vs Mst. Kausar Jehan2019 YLR 1181 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Darvaish & 2 others vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 177, 2019 PCRLJ 1086, PLJ 2019 Cr.C.1525, 2019 LHC · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-08
  murderdeath sentencechance witnessinterested witnessbenefit of the doubtmedical contradictionocular evidencedeaf and dumb witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a double murder case. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and forensic reports in a night-time incident, the implications of withholding injured witnesses, and the evaluation of partisan and chance witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the eyewitnesses were chance and interested witnesses, the source of light on a foggy night was not established, serious contradictions existed between the ocular and medical evidence, and crucial injured witnesses were improperly withheld. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt, setting aside their convictions and sentences, and answering the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of chance and interested witnesses requires strict corroboration, and failure to establish foundational facts like the source of light in a night-time occurrence or unexplained discrepancies with medical evidence creates a strong, inescapable doubt requiring the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance and interested witnesses can form the basis of a conviction without strong corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish a reliable source of light during a night-time occurrence create a fatal doubt regarding the identity of the accused?
  • How should the evidence of a deaf and dumb witness be recorded in the absence of explicit statutory provisions?
  • What are the legal consequences when material ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs Judge Family Court and others2019 CLC 640 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal vs The State, etc2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 443, 2019 SCMR 1362, 2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 446, 2019 SCP 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-15
  qatl-e-amdpersonal vendettaterrorismcourt premisescapital sentenceeyewitness testimonyballistic evidencemens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for qatl-e-amd and terrorism where the appellant shot and killed a person within court precincts to avenge his brother's murder. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of eyewitnesses, including police officials and the deceased's father, as well as the immediate apprehension of the appellant at the scene with the murder weapon. The core legal question concerned whether a targeted killing motivated by personal vendetta, despite occurring in a sensitive location like a court, constitutes 'terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, finding the evidence of guilt overwhelming. However, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court laid down the principle that while an act of violence in court premises may be triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court, a personal vendetta does not automatically fall within the mischief of terrorism unless it possesses the specific nexus and intent contemplated by Section 6 of the Act.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal S/o Ghulam Hussain vs Jaan Muhammad S/o Haji2019 SHC 542 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17
  qatl-i-amdquantum of sentencelack of motivecriminal appealdeath sentenceSection 302(c) PPCappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellant's act of firing a single shot, which hit the deceased's thumb before causing fatal injuries, constituted intentional murder (qatl-i-amd) under Section 302(b) or a lesser offence under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the absence of motive and the appellant's subsequent attempt to save the deceased. The Court held that the prosecution proved the occurrence but failed to establish the requisite intent for Section 302(b). The Court observed that the appellant lacked motive, fired only once, and immediately transported the victim to the hospital, indicating no intent to kill. The principle laid down is that where a fatal injury results from a single shot that first strikes a non-vital part (like a thumb) and lacks evidence of prior enmity or murderous intent, the offence is more appropriately categorized under Section 302(c) rather than Section 302(b), warranting a reduction in sentence from death to rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of motive and the immediate attempt to seek medical aid for the victim negate the intent required for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c) where the fatal shot was fired without clear murderous intent?
  • Is a single gunshot wound that strikes a non-vital part first, causing death, sufficient to prove intent to commit murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal son of Muhammad Rasool vs The State etc2019 PHC 320 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21
  retracted confessioncircumstantial evidenceright of private defensejuvenile offendercriminal appealsentence enhancementjudicial confessionforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, resulting in a ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The core legal question concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession in the absence of ocular witnesses, and whether the appellant’s claim of self-defense against sexual assault justified a lesser sentence or acquittal. The Court held that the conviction was sound, finding the appellant's judicial confession voluntary and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of the crime weapon, and forensic reports. Although the appellant claimed he acted to prevent sodomy, the Court ruled that by targeting the deceased's skull, the appellant exceeded the right of private defense. The Court affirmed the principle that a retracted confession, if found voluntary and truthful, can sustain a conviction even without independent corroboration, though corroboration is preferred as a matter of caution. Consequently, the Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision petition, maintaining the original sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a retracted judicial confession if it is found to be voluntary and corroborated by other evidence?
  • Does the right of private defense extend to using lethal force when the accused targets a vital part of the deceased's body?
  • In a case involving both a confession and other evidence, can the court accept only the portion of the confession that supports the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Khan vs Mst. Nazia Hassan and others2019 YLR 1290 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Khan vs Azad Govt. & others2019 SC AJK 145 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and others vs Government of Gilgit-Baltistan2019 PLC (C.S.) 114 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court
  departmental promotionrecruitment rulesinitial appointmentservice matterlocus standiquota exhaustioneligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the government's decision to fill BPS-18 posts in the Education Department through initial recruitment via the Federal Public Service Commission, arguing that the petitioners were entitled to promotion against these vacancies. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had a vested right to promotion before initial recruitment could occur, and whether the departmental promotion quota remained available. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court dismissed the petition, holding that the departmental promotion quota, as defined by the Recruitment Rules of 2009, had already been fully exhausted by prior promotions. The Court further observed that certain petitioners failed to meet the mandatory five-year service requirement in BPS-17 necessary for promotion eligibility. The key principle laid down is that once the departmental promotion quota prescribed by the relevant recruitment rules is exhausted, the government is legally authorized to fill remaining vacancies through initial recruitment. Consequently, the petitioners lacked the locus standi to challenge the requisition sent to the Federal Public Service Commission, as their claims were inconsistent with the established recruitment framework and their own service records.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exhaustion of a departmental promotion quota permit the government to fill remaining vacancies through initial recruitment?
  • Can a government employee claim a right to promotion if they have not completed the mandatory length of service required by the recruitment rules?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the departmental promotion quota has already been exhausted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Ahmad vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1392 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-29
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequenon-prohibitory clausefinancial crimebail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence available. The Court held that the prosecution's case rested on documentary evidence already in its possession, eliminating the risk of tampering. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the principle that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. It further held that the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases or the magnitude of the financial amount involved does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the basis of the large financial amount involved in a case of a dishonoured cheque?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Basheer and another vs The State2019 YLR 1000 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-06
  narcoticsopium recoveryindependent mashirspolice witnessessafe custody of samplechemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of opium. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police testimony alone without independent corroboration where private witnesses were available, the effect of material contradictions in witness statements, and the failure to prove safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband to the chemical examiner. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the non-association of independent witnesses despite their availability at the railway station, numerous material contradictions among police witnesses, an unverified chemical examiner's report indicating discrepancies in dates, and the lack of proof regarding safe custody in the Malkhana. The court laid down the principle that while police evidence is admissible, non-association of available independent mashirs during a recovery in a public place weakens the prosecution's case, requiring independent corroboration, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-association of independent witnesses during a recovery at a public place renders police evidence insufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does an inconsistency regarding the date and transit of samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the proof of safe custody?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses on the sustainability of a narcotics conviction?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bachal vs Muhammad Arif Memon2019 YLR 1040 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-24
  specific performancesale agreementtime is essenceimmovable propertycontractual obligationsreadiness and willingnesscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over a specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The core legal question was whether the appellant, as the seller, fulfilled his contractual obligations—specifically the duty to obtain a sale certificate—and whether time was of the essence in the contract, thereby justifying the respondent's cancellation of the agreement. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, which had reversed the trial court's findings. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove he had taken steps to obtain the required sale certificate, as confirmed by the Mukhtiarkar's testimony. Conversely, the respondent demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform by depositing the balance consideration in court. The Court affirmed the principle that in contracts involving immovable property, time is generally not considered the essence of the contract merely by the inclusion of a specific date for performance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revisions, finding the trial court's initial judgment suffered from material irregularity and misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is time considered the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property merely because a specific date for performance is mentioned?
  • Does the failure to obtain a required sale certificate as per the terms of a sale agreement constitute a breach of contract?
  • Can a court rely on the testimony of a government official, such as a Mukhtiarkar, to determine if a party fulfilled a contractual obligation to obtain a certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Babar Khan vs The State2019 PTD 582 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-22
  quashment of criminal proceedingsduty drawback claimsmens reaFederal Tax Ombudsmancustoms fraudacquittalmisdeclaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed against the dismissal of an application under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, arising out of an FIR registered under the Customs Act, 1969 regarding allegedly fraudulent duty drawback claims. The core legal questions were whether an offence under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 is made out when an inaccurate list of claims is erroneously submitted to the Federal Tax Ombudsman rather than a custom officer, and whether the absence of mens rea and non-availability of operational software warrant acquittal under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case lacked the essential element of mens rea since the inaccurate data was furnished unintentionally due to missing software records and did not involve a misdeclaration to a custom officer causing revenue loss. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's order, allowed the application, and acquitted the applicant, establishing the principle that penal provisions under the Customs Act require a deliberate misdeclaration to a custom officer with intent to evade revenue, and futile trials should be terminated under Section 265-K when conviction likelihood is absent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 is attracted when an inaccurate statement is submitted before the Federal Tax Ombudsman instead of a custom officer?
  • Does the submission of an inaccurate duty drawback claim due to missing software records constitute an offence lacking mens rea?
  • Can a trial court exercise powers under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to acquit an accused when there is no probability of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim Khan Leghari vs The Establishment Division through The Secretary Establishment, Islamabad and 3 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 87 · Federal Service Tribunal
  service tribunalmajor penaltyreduction to lower postlack of supervisioncivil servantproportionality of punishmentcensure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed before the Federal Service Tribunal by a civil servant challenging the imposition of a major penalty of reduction to a lower post from BS-20 to BS-19 for a period of one year, along with the rejection of his departmental appeal, on charges of inefficiency and lack of supervision following the theft of an official vehicle and weapons. The core legal question was whether the major penalty imposed on the appellant for negligence and lack of supervision was justified given that the primary wrongdoers were let off and the safe custody of the items was not directly his personal responsibility. The Tribunal held that while the appellant showed some lack of supervision, the major penalty was harsh and did not commensurate with his lapse, especially since those directly responsible were exonerated on appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal converted the major penalty of reduction to a lower post into a minor penalty of censure, establishing the principle that disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the actual direct responsibility and guilt of the civil servant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a major penalty of reduction to a lower post is proportionate for a senior officer where direct subordinates responsible for the loss were let off?
  • Does inordinate delay in the initiation of disciplinary action against a civil servant render the legitimacy of the action doubtful?
  • Can a supervisory officer be held directly accountable for the safe custody of official property not issued in his personal name?
  • Under what circumstances can a major penalty imposed upon a civil servant be converted into a minor penalty by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Shoro and others vs Inspector General, Sindh Police, Central Police Office, Karachi and others2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 191 · Sindh Service Tribunal
  service appealpolice personnelillegal appointmentdischarge from serviceSupreme Court ordersre-examination testSindh Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  These service appeals arise from a common impugned order dated 21.02.2017 whereby several police personnel were discharged from service upon recommendations of an enquiry committee following orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question is whether the appellants, who were appointed as constables in the District Police, fall within the purview of the Supreme Court's orders concerning irregular police appointments and whether their discharge was lawful. The Sindh Service Tribunal held that the subsequent orders of the Supreme Court dated 26.12.2016 apply broadly to police personnel employed from 2012 to 2015, requiring them to appear in a re-examination test through the National Testing Service (NTS). Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals, aligning its decision with precedent holding that affected personnel must avail themselves of the reassessment process directed by the apex court. The key principle established is that directions of the Supreme Court regarding irregular public appointments during a specific period apply uniformly to similarly situated personnel, subject to statutory re-examination processes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether police personnel appointed between 2012 and 2015 fall within the scope of Supreme Court directions regarding irregular appointments?
  • Does the removal from service of police constables based on an enquiry committee report pursuant to Supreme Court orders sustain under service law?
  • Are police employees discharged for irregular appointments entitled to reinstatement without appearing in a re-examination test?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Hussain and another vs The State and another2019 PLD Supreme Court 595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-02
  qatl-i-amdconfessional statementadmissibility of confessionvoluntariness of confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealMagistrate's dutycontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns a criminal appeal and a jail petition challenging convictions for qatl-i-amd under Section 302 PPC, upheld by the High Court. The core legal question revolved around the reliability and admissibility of confessional statements made by the accused before a Judicial Magistrate, which formed the prosecution's mainstay. The Supreme Court held that the confessional statements were inherently flawed and unreliable due to multiple errors. These errors included remarkable similarity and exhaustive detail suggesting a "negotiated settlement" rather than voluntary disclosure, contradictions with a prosecution witness's testimony regarding the accused's presence, and discrepancies with the recovery memo concerning the weapon. The Court emphasized that confessional statements warrant the most careful scrutiny, especially given their irreversible consequences. It further ruled that Magistrates must personally communicate warnings as contemplated by Section 364 Cr.P.C., rather than relying on printed forms, to ensure voluntariness. Finding the confessional statements unreliable and in the absence of evidentiary certainty, the Court set aside the convictions, granting the accused the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can confessional statements be relied upon if they show remarkable similarity and exhaustive detail, suggesting a negotiated settlement rather than a voluntary disclosure?
  • Whether contradictions between confessional statements and other prosecution evidence, such as witness testimony or recovery memos, render the confessions unreliable?
  • Is it sufficient for a Magistrate to obtain an accused's signature on a printed form for administering warnings before recording a confessional statement, or must the warnings be personally communicated?
  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on moral satisfaction without legal proof, especially when confessional statements are found unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Hussain and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-02
  capital punishmentjudicial confessionvoluntary confessionbenefit of the doubtcriminal jurisprudencerejection of confessionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the qatl-e-amad of a child, which was upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether judicial confessions heavily relied upon by the prosecution were voluntary, reliable, and sufficient to sustain capital punishment in the presence of material contradictions and procedural flaws in recording. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions, holding that confessional statements bearing striking similarities, inconsistency with ocular testimony, contradictions regarding weapon recovery, and mechanical use of printed forms for statutory warnings cannot form the basis of a safe conviction. The Court laid down that judicial confessions must be scrutinized with utmost care to exclude any possibility of inducement, and that the magistrate must personally and faithfully communicate all statutory warnings under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rather than relying on printed formats, to ensure evidentiary certainty before imposing capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judicial confession showing remarkable similarity and coordination between multiple accused can be considered voluntary and free from taints of inducement?
  • Is a conviction based on judicial confessions sustainable when they contradict the ocular testimony of the prosecution's own witness?
  • Does the use of a printed form to administer warnings vitiate the recording of a confessional statement under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether material contradictions between the recovery of the weapon of offence and the narrative given in a confessional statement render the confession unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs The State & another2019 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem S/o Abdul Aziz vs The State2020 MLD 871, 2019 SHC 561 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-19
  explosive substancesillicit armspolice witnessesrecovery proceedingsminor discrepanciescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a common judgment passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under the Explosive Substances Act and the Sindh Arms Act. The core legal questions involve the credibility of police witnesses in recovery proceedings, the effect of minor discrepancies in evidence, and the proof of possession of illicit arms and explosives. The Sindh High Court held that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimonies carry equal weight unless malafide is proven, and that minor discrepancies do not damage an otherwise trustworthy prosecution case. The court dismissed the appeals on merits while slightly reducing the substantive sentence under the arms legislation, upholding the rest of the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials competent witnesses whose testimony can form the basis of a conviction without independent private mashirs?
  • Does the destruction of case property in a malkhana fire vitiate an otherwise proved criminal case against the accused?
  • Can minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses be a ground for acquittal?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials is sufficient to prove possession of illicit explosives and weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1068 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-16
  suspension of sentencestatutory right to bailpending appealmurderpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner Muhammad Azam sought the suspension of his sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dunya Pur on 22.10.2016 under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending his appeal. The Court held that the petitioner's sentence should be suspended and he be released on bail. The ratio of the decision is that where an appeal has remained pending for a statutory period without disposal, resulting in the accrual of a statutory right to bail, and where the accused has no previous criminal record, is not a desperate criminal, and the legal heirs of the deceased have no objection to the petition, the sentence may be suspended pending the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of a convict can be suspended under Section 426 Cr.P.C. when the appeal remains pending for a long period?
  • Does the accrual of a statutory right to bail warrant the suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Can the lack of a previous criminal record and the non-objection of legal heirs form valid grounds for suspending a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Robkar-e-Adalat2019 SC AJK 136 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan vs Mst. Armeen Ahmed2019 LHC 1554 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan Niazi vs General Manager, SNGPL, Islamabad2019 CLC 1998 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-24
  civil court jurisdictionimplied bar of jurisdictionOGRA Ordinance 2002rejection of plaintconsumer grievance redressalgas meter disconnectionalternative remedystatutory forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal challenges the concurrent dismissal of a civil suit by the lower courts, which rejected the appellant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant had sought a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, regarding the potential disconnection of a gas meter. The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, and the associated 2003 Regulations, which provide a specific mechanism for consumer complaints. The Court held that the suit was not maintainable in a civil court because the OGRA Ordinance, 2002, and the Complaint Resolution Procedure Regulations, 2003, establish a comprehensive, efficacious, and mandatory forum for resolving disputes between consumers and licensees. The ratio confirms that where a statute creates a special forum for addressing specific grievances, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that consumers must exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the OGRA framework before seeking judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, impliedly bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in disputes between gas consumers and licensees?
  • Can a trial court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. if a specific statutory forum for the grievance exists?
  • Is a gas consumer required to exhaust the complaint resolution mechanism under the 2003 Regulations before approaching a civil court?
  • Does the power of the High Court to review OGRA decisions under the OGRA Ordinance, 2002, preclude the filing of a civil suit for the same grievance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan alias Niazi Khan vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 1577 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-07
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountcapital punishmentcriminal appealforensic evidencemedical evidenceidentification of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given inconsistencies in the ocular account, medical evidence, and the identity of the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court found the ocular account unreliable due to contradictions between prosecution witnesses and the investigating officer, and the failure to explain why witnesses were spared. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicted the prosecution's timeline, and the forensic evidence regarding the recovered weapon lacked proof of proper transmission. The Court emphasized that motive is a double-edged weapon and that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity, as his name did not surface during the investigation. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to establish the transmission of a crime weapon to a forensic laboratory invalidate the forensic evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses' testimony contradicts the physical evidence and the investigating officer's findings?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Does the failure to mention an accused's name during the investigation and charge-framing process create a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Channa vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2019 PLC (C.S.) 1533 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-18
  civil servanttransfer and postingservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicemala fideouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition challenging a notification transferring him from his position as Director, Planning and Monitoring Cell, Agriculture, Supply and Prices Department. The petitioner contended that the transfer violated the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, and was motivated by mala fide intentions to accommodate another official. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, asserting that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the transfer and posting of a civil servant constitute "terms and conditions of service" as defined under the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes, including allegations of mala fide or procedural irregularities, rests with the Service Tribunal. The High Court concluded that it could not exercise constitutional jurisdiction in service matters, leaving the petitioner to seek redress before the appropriate forum as provided by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a challenge to the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Do matters of transfer and posting fall within the 'terms and conditions of service' of a civil servant?
  • Can allegations of mala fide in a transfer order be adjudicated by the High Court instead of the Service Tribunal?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan bar the High Court from entertaining service-related petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and another vs The State2019 MLD 1597 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-06
  murder convictionappellate reviewhearsay evidenceburden of proofcriminal appealsentence enhancementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on witness testimony and the absence of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, finding that the complainant's testimony was based on hearsay and that the alleged eye-witnesses provided inconsistent and unreliable accounts. The Court emphasized that conviction in a criminal case must rest on solid, credible evidence rather than mere suspicion or delayed reports. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charges. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution and that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable when the complainant's testimony is based entirely on hearsay evidence?
  • Does a significant delay in reporting a missing person, coupled with a lack of direct evidence, undermine the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  • Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the prosecution's star witnesses provide testimony that is inconsistent or lacks corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and 4 others vs Nabi Bakhsh and another2019 YLR 2025 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-08
  Illegal Dispossession Actinterim possessionland disputestatus quocivil disputeinterim reliefproperty ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Sessions Judge Mastung, whereby an application for interim relief under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was allowed, directing the petitioners to hand over peaceful possession of the disputed land to the respondent-complainant. The core legal question revolves around whether interim possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be granted when both parties claim conflicting ownership, long-standing possession, and where a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting final relief at an interim stage without recording evidence, overlooking the fact that a bona fide property dispute existed between the parties and that the scope of Section 7 is strictly limited to a tentative assessment. The court set aside the impugned order, directed the parties to maintain status quo, and ordered the trial court to expedite the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that interim orders under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot pre-empt the final outcome or resolve complicated questions of possession and ownership without recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be granted when both parties raise divergent claims of ownership and long-standing possession?
  • Can a trial court decide the merits of a property dispute conclusively through an interim order under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Is recording of evidence necessary when parties present conflicting claims regarding forcible dispossession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam alias Ajju vs The State2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-29
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceeyewitness credibilitydelayed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed by the High Court, which modified the death sentence initially imposed by the Trial Court for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies regarding the time of the FIR, medical evidence contradicting the eyewitness accounts of fasting, unexplained delays in sending bullet casings for forensic analysis, and an unsecured crime scene. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that multiple unresolved doubts and flaws in the prosecution's case vitiated the conviction. The key principle laid down is that cumulative discrepancies regarding eyewitness credibility, medical evidence, and delayed forensic analysis create sufficient doubt to warrant the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence regarding the victim having food while allegedly fasting are sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered bullet casings to the forensic laboratory weaken the prosecution case?
  • Whether serious flaws and contradictions in the prosecution evidence warrant the outright acquittal of an accused rather than a reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad Khan vs The State through Advocate General Azad2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 126 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad Khan vs State through Advocate General, Azad Jammu2019 MLD 799 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-03-18
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorism lawspecial courtsexpeditious trialcriminal procedurebail refusalAzad Jammu and Kashmir law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated appeals against a High Court judgment that denied post-arrest bail to the appellants in a criminal case involving charges under the Azad Penal Code and the AJ&K Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the allegations and the statutory restrictions imposed by special anti-terrorism legislation. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the lower courts' refusal to grant bail, holding that the appellants failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity or arbitrariness in the impugned orders. The Court emphasized that bail applications for offences under the AJ&K Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014, must be adjudicated strictly according to the special provisions of that Act, specifically Section 53, rather than relying on precedents applicable to ordinary criminal law. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the necessity of expeditious trial proceedings as mandated by Section 46 of the Act, directing the trial court to ensure the case is disposed of promptly to avoid frustrating the purpose of the special legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail in cases under the AJ&K Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014 should be adjudicated under the special provisions of that Act rather than ordinary criminal law?
  • Can a court grant bail when the accused is charged with heinous offences under the AJ&K Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014 without demonstrating legal infirmity in the lower court's order?
  • Does the delay in trial proceedings justify the grant of bail in cases involving special anti-terrorism legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad alias Javaid alias Jodi vs The State, etc2019 PLJ SC Cr.C. 441, 2019 SCMR 1330, 2019 SCP 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-05-22
  qatal-e-Amdkidnapping for ransomcircumstantial evidencecapital punishmentrecoverycall data record
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant for the kidnapping and qatal-e-Amd of a minor child for ransom. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, including identification of the accused, call data records, and recoveries made pursuant to a disclosure under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstances was well-synchronized, intrinsically confidence-inspiring, and pointed unequivocally to the guilt of the appellant. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, affirming the death sentence given the brutality of the offense. The key principle laid down is that a conviction based on a coherent and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence—supported by prompt reporting, trustworthy eyewitness identification, call data records, and successful discoveries under Article 40—remains unassailable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder and kidnapping for ransom can be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a disclosure leading to the discovery of a corpse under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 constitute strong incriminating evidence?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and the High Court warrant interference when supported by confidence-inspiring evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Muzaffar Khan (Deceased) and others2019 IHC 206 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Khan Sanjrani vs Sindh Health Care Commission &2019 SHC 184 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-17
  contractual employmentmaster and servant principlenon-renewal of contractcivil servant statusspecific performancedisciplinary inquiryreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil suits filed by contract employees of the Sindh Health Care Commission challenging the non-renewal of their employment contracts and the failure of the Commission to conduct disciplinary inquiries before such non-renewal. The core legal question is whether contract employees, who are not civil servants, are entitled to the procedural protections of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and whether they can seek specific performance or reinstatement upon the expiry of their contracts. The Court held that the employment relationship is governed by the principle of Master and Servant and the specific terms of the contract, rather than statutory service rules. The Court ruled that contract employees do not possess a vested right to the renewal of their contracts, nor are they entitled to disciplinary inquiry procedures for non-renewal. The key principles laid down are that contract employees are not Civil Servants under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and that the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved contract employee, where the contract is not renewed or is terminated, is a claim for damages rather than reinstatement or specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Are contract employees entitled to the protections of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 regarding inquiry procedures?
  • Does a contract employee have a vested right to the renewal of their employment contract upon its expiry?
  • Can a court grant specific performance or reinstatement for a contract employee whose contract has not been renewed?
  • Is a contract employee considered a Civil Servant under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and others vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1731 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-23
  Section 342 examinationcriminal appealremandconviction set asideincriminating evidenceprocedural illegalityanti-corruptionSection 364 certification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of appellants by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption for offenses including forgery and misappropriation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s failure to properly record the accused's statements under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the failure to comply with the certification requirements of Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the conviction. The High Court held that the trial court committed a serious illegality by failing to put specific incriminating evidence to the accused, instead relying on a stereotype examination. Furthermore, the mandatory certification under Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was not in the presiding officer's handwriting. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a fresh trial, directing the lower court to record the statements of the accused properly and issue a new judgment. The principle established is that any evidence not put to an accused during their Section 342 examination cannot be used to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court use evidence against an accused that was not put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory or discretionary?
  • Does the failure of a judge to personally handwrite the certificate required by Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate the accused's statement?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for a fresh trial if the trial court failed to properly record the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Alvi vs Admin Incharge Pakistan Cotton and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 917 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-20
  service mattersdismissal from servicemisconductdepartmental negligenceprinciple of estoppelconstitutional petitionback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his dismissal from service as a Cotton Field Officer by the Pakistan Cotton Standard Institute after serving for approximately thirty-one years, near the verge of his retirement. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's appointment without the requisite graduation degree rendered him liable to dismissal after decades of service, and whether the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal order complied with mandatory service rules and principles of natural justice. The Sindh High Court held that the department could not belatedly penalize the employee for a lack of qualification after decades of acquiescence and gross departmental negligence in verifying credentials, and that the dismissal order passed without proper statutory inquiry and adherence to procedural rules was unsustainable. The court laid down the principle that a public institution cannot blow hot and cold by taking advantage of its own initial negligence in appointment after allowing an employee to serve for decades, and that statutory disciplinary procedures and natural justice must be strictly observed before imposing major penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be dismissed from service after serving for decades on the ground of lacking initial qualifications when the employer failed to verify credentials at the time of appointment?
  • Does departmental negligence and prolonged acquiescence in an employee's service attract the principle of estoppel against the employer?
  • Whether the failure to conduct a proper departmental inquiry as mandated by service rules renders a major penalty of dismissal illegal and void?
  • Does a constitutional court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to interfere with unlawful employment termination by a government-owned institution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atif vs Mst. Afsheen and 2 others2019 PLD Sindh 187 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atif Shahzad vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 1055 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-11
  pre-arrest bailconspiracypolice misconductcriminal conspiracybail dismissalmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 225/18, involving charges under sections 302, 324, 109, 34, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a police officer, sought pre-arrest bail, contending he was not named in the FIR and had no nexus with the alleged crime, arguing the allegations were vague. The prosecution alleged the petitioner facilitated a conspiracy by keeping a co-accused in custody in a separate, bailable arms case to provide an alibi or staging ground for the murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner met the criteria for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy reserved for cases of mala fides or where no offence is disclosed on the face of the record. Finding sufficient incriminating material linking the petitioner to the conspiracy, the Court affirmed that police officers facilitating crime warrant no leniency. The principle established is that pre-arrest bail is not a routine relief and is denied where the prosecution presents a prima facie case of involvement.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a matter of right or an extraordinary relief granted only in exceptional circumstances?
  • Can a police officer be denied pre-arrest bail if there is incriminating material suggesting their involvement in a criminal conspiracy?
  • Does the absence of a name in the FIR automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State2019 MLD 973 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-25
  jail appealkidnapping for ransomdelayed FIRidentification paradesupplementary statementbenefit of doubtrule of consistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and Section 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution case stemmed from a kidnapping-for-ransom incident where the FIR was lodged with a delay of four months, omitting the names and descriptions of the accused. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of belated supplementary statements, the necessity of an identification parade when accused persons are not named in the FIR, and the application of the rule of consistency given the acquittal of a co-accused on identical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that unexplained delay in the FIR, lack of prompt naming of the accused, absence of a formal identification parade before a magistrate, and material contradictions in witness testimonies rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court established that a supplementary statement has no legal value when delayed, identification at a police station without prior magistrate-supervised parade carries no weight, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a belated supplementary statement recorded months after the lodging of the FIR?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused is not named in the FIR or initial police statements and is later shown to witnesses at a police station?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the same set of evidence that resulted in the acquittal of a co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • How many circumstances creating doubt are required to extend the benefit of doubt to an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 243 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-17
  post-arrest bailemigration frauddelay in FIRfurther inquirystatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 263/2018 registered under Sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station FIA, C.C. Circle, Multan, on allegations of receiving money for employment visas to Dubai but failing to provide the visas or return the funds. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the absence of specific dates and times for the alleged payments, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court also considered the petitioner's previous non-convict status, his incarceration period since 12.10.2018, the completion of investigation, and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon. The application was accepted and post-arrest bail was granted, establishing that unexplained delay in reporting and lack of specific payment details warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether failure to specify the exact date and time of alleged monetary transactions can be a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is a previous non-convict who has joined the investigation and whose trial is not likely to conclude soon entitled to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Province of Punjab and two others2020 MLD 84, 2019 LHC 2985 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue Punjab2019 CLC 1141 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-26
  civil revisionaudi alteram partemnatural justicecondemned unheardallotment of landvoid ab initioright to noticeremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed against the judgments and decrees of the trial and appellate courts, which upheld an order passed by the Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab. The core legal question was whether an administrative or revenue order affecting an individual's rights over land could be sustained when passed without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the proviso to Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the principles of natural justice. The High Court held that the Member Board of Revenue passed the impugned order unilaterally without hearing the petitioner, despite the land allotment and possession being in the petitioner's name. Applying the doctrine of audi alteram partem and Article 10-A of the Constitution, the Court held that any order passed without notice or fair hearing is void ab initio. Consequentially, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments, decrees, and the revenue order, remanding the case to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision after hearing all concerned parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order passed by a Revenue Officer reversing or modifying a subordinate order without giving an affected person an opportunity of being heard violate Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • What is the legal effect of an administrative or judicial order passed in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • Is a formal notice detailing the facts, date, and proposed action a mandatory requirement before taking adverse action against an affected party?
  • Can the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution be read into statutory proceedings even where specific procedural provisions are silent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Ishrat Bibi and another2019 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Haji Abdul Hakim Khan2020 CLC 659, 2019 LHC 1854 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet2019 PLC (C.S.) 652, 2019 PLJ Islamabad 74 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-10-31
  medical reimbursementwrit petitionadministrative discretionequality before lawgovernment servantmedical treatment abroadarbitrary exercise of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a government servant seeking reimbursement for medical expenses incurred during a liver transplant in India. The petitioner failed to obtain prior approval from the Ministry of Health, which was a mandatory requirement under the prevailing policy guidelines. The court held that the petition must be dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to secure prior sanction and the inordinate delay in filing the petition. However, the court critically observed that the executive's practice of granting medical treatment funds abroad on an ad hoc basis, despite the formal revocation of the policy, constitutes an exercise of unstructured, unbridled, and unfettered discretion. The court held that such unchecked discretion violates the principle of equality before the law as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the court directed the relevant Ministry to frame clear and definite rules to govern the exercise of such discretion to prevent arbitrariness and discrimination in the future.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exercise of executive discretion without defined criteria or guidelines violate the principle of equality before the law?
  • Is a government servant entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment abroad if they failed to obtain prior approval from the competent authority?
  • Can a court grant relief in a writ petition where there has been an inordinate delay in approaching the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Faqeer Muhammad and others2021 [M] C L R 714, 2019 LHC 3450 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Collector of Customs (Appeals), Islamabad and 3 others2019 PTD (Trib.) 2310 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 3 others vs The State and another2019 YLR 1226 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-15
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtalibisuo motu revisionmitigation of sentencedeath penaltyappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court for murder and related offenses. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, especially considering that several co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence and some appellants raised credible pleas of alibi. The Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case against three appellants and a fugitive co-convict, leading to their acquittal. Regarding the primary appellant, the Court maintained the conviction but mitigated the sentence from death to life imprisonment, citing the lack of forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime and the absence of specific firing allegations on multiple counts. The Court laid down the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, if any reasonable circumstance creates a dent in the prosecution's version. Furthermore, it reiterated that the court should prioritize avoiding the conviction of an innocent person over the risk of acquitting the guilty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to acquit a fugitive convict who did not file an appeal?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence necessitate the acquittal of remaining appellants?
  • Can a death sentence be mitigated to life imprisonment where forensic evidence fails to link the weapon to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 01 other vs Muhammad Shafiqullah Chakriyal and 03 others2019 CLC 1690, 2019 PHC 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim and others vs Mst. Samro Begum and others2019 SCP 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-08-15
  family lawmaintenancehaq mehrappellate powersnon-disclosure of earningsadverse inferenceinflationchild maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a family dispute involving a suit for dissolution of marriage, maintenance, and recovery of mehr filed by Mst. Samro Begum against Muhammad Asim. The Family Court decreed the suit, which was subsequently modified by the Appellate Court to include an annual ten percent increase in maintenance and an award of gold as balance haq mehr. Cross-objections filed by the wife were held not maintainable by the Appellate Court. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petitions. The core legal questions pertained to the powers of an appellate court under family law to grant relief despite non-maintainable cross-objections, the justification for an annual increase in maintenance, and the legal consequences of a husband's willful non-disclosure of his earnings. The Supreme Court held that an appellate court can grant relief to a respondent to correct a failure of justice, that an annual increase in maintenance accounts for inflation, and that an adverse inference may be drawn against a husband who willfully conceals his salary. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court grant relief in favour of a respondent in family proceedings even if cross-objections were held to be not maintainable?
  • Whether an appellate court is justified in increasing maintenance payments annually to cater for inflation?
  • What legal consequence follows when a husband willfully conceals his salary and earnings in maintenance proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 521 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06
  fair trialdefective chargeremandadmissibility of evidenceanti-terrorismprocedural irregularityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the Anti-Terrorism Court following a remand order. The appellant was initially convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, but the appellate court previously set aside the judgment due to a defective charge and remanded the case for retrial. Upon remand, the trial court framed a fresh charge but failed to record fresh evidence, instead adopting the evidence from the previous proceedings with the consent of both the prosecution and the defense. The core legal question was whether such adopted evidence could legally sustain a conviction. The High Court held that the conviction was illegal, ruling that evidence recorded during a trial with a defective charge is inadmissible and cannot be cured by the consent of the parties. Emphasizing the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the court ruled that the trial court was obligated to record evidence afresh. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded during a trial with a defective charge be made admissible by the consent of the parties upon remand?
  • Is a trial court required to record fresh evidence when a case is remanded for a retrial due to a defective charge?
  • Does the adoption of evidence from a previous defective trial violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State etc2019 MLD 1197, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 751, 2019 LHC 602 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05
  murdercriminal appealchance witnessdelayed FIRpost-mortem examinationrule of consistencyacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and chance eyewitnesses, the implications of delayed post-mortem examinations and FIR registration, and the rule of consistency in view of the acquittal of co-accused assigned similar roles. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the eyewitnesses were chance and inimical witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, the FIR was the result of consultation and concoction preceded by a delayed post-mortem, and no independent corroboratory evidence linked the appellant to the crime, especially given the acquittal of co-accused attributed identical roles. The key principles laid down include that the testimony of related and chance witnesses requires strong, unimpeachable corroboration, and that a co-accused is entitled to acquittal on the basis of consistency when co-accused with identical roles have already been acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without strong independent corroboration in a murder case?
  • What is the legal effect of a delayed post-mortem examination and delayed registration of the FIR on the prosecution's case?
  • Does an accused person deserve acquittal on the rule of consistency when co-accused assigned similar roles have already been acquitted?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony regarding the specific author of a fatal injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State & another2019 PCr.LJ 1545, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1128, 2019 LHC 730 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15
  murderbenefit of doubtocular account improvementsmedical evidenceforensic science agency reportrule of consistencyacquittaldeath sentence
  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, along with connected murder reference, acquittal appeal, and revision petition. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony marked by major improvements, the corroborative value of medical evidence, the reliability of weapon recoveries when dispatched together with crime empties, and the application of the rule of consistency following the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that material discrepancies, improvements in witness statements at trial, failure to secure the source of identification (motorcycles/lights), and simultaneous dispatch of crime empties and weapon to the forensic agency rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court reiterated that medical evidence only establishes the nature of injuries and weapon used rather than connecting an accused to the crime, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the murder reference answered in the negative, and the appeal accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements made by eye-witnesses during trial compared to their previous statements destroy the credibility of the ocular account?
  • Does medical evidence alone connect an accused person to the commission of a crime?
  • Can a positive forensic report regarding a weapon and crime empties be relied upon when both items are dispatched together to the forensic laboratory?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs Superintendent of Police and others2020 PLD Lahore 137, 2019 LHC 3688 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs MCB Bank Limited & Others2019 CLD 733, 2020 P C T L R 1171, 2019 SHC 104 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Khan, Primary Teacher, Government Primary School2019 P.S.C. 769 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  service appealtransfer of civil servantdisabled employeedisputed question of factremand of caseservice tribunal powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby a transfer order of respondent No. 1, a primary teacher, was set aside. The respondent challenged his transfer from Government Primary School Katkair to Middle School Lohar Kot before the Service Tribunal, claiming exemption from transfer due to being a disabled person, relying on a disability certificate and a National Identity Card with a disability insignia. The appellant contended that the respondent was not appointed against a quota for disabled persons and had previously performed rigorous duties during elections and censuses. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal properly adjudicated the disputed question of fact regarding the respondent's disability without recording evidence or adequately examining the record. The Supreme Court held that the determination of disability in this context is a disputed question of fact suitable for resolution by a forum competent to record evidence, and that the Service Tribunal possesses such powers under the relevant statute. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision after considering all material issues and evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal is competent to record evidence to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding a civil servant's disability?
  • Can a civil servant claim exemption from transfer on the ground of disability when not appointed against a disabled quota?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can determine disputed questions of fact concerning a civil servant's physical fitness or disability in an appeal by leave?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Khan vs Muhammad Rizwan and 5 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 528, 2019 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 20 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-10-13
  civil servicetransfer orderdisability exemptiondisputed question of factremandevidence recording
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a Service Tribunal judgment dated 12 October 2017, which set aside a transfer order dated 28 April 2017 affecting Respondent No. 1. The respondent, a Primary Teacher, challenged his transfer on the grounds that he was a permanently disabled person and thus exempt from such transfers under a Government notification. The appellant contended that the respondent was neither appointed against the disabled quota nor was he actually disabled, pointing to his performance of duties in hard areas during elections and census. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir observed that while the respondent possessed a disability certificate and a specialized National Identity Card, the question of his disability remained a disputed question of fact. The Court held that the Service Tribunal possesses the powers of a civil court under Section 5(2) of the AJ&K Service Tribunals Act, 1975, and is fully competent to record evidence to resolve such factual disputes. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim posting at a place of their own choice for an indefinite period under Section 9 of the AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the power to record evidence to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding a civil servant's disability status?
  • Whether a case should be remanded to the Service Tribunal when there is a disputed question of fact regarding a civil servant's eligibility for disability-based transfer exemptions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and another vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 1156 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-14
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionlast-seen evidenceblind murderbenefit of the doubtchain of circumstancesmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court. The case is a blind murder resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, an extra-judicial confession, motive, and a weapon recovery. The core legal questions involve the sufficiency and reliability of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of joint extra-judicial confessions, and the standard of proof required in cases of indirect evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime, that joint extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible, and that the last-seen evidence and motive were highly doubtful. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants on the ground of benefit of the doubt, laying down the principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint extra-judicial confession made by multiple accused persons admissible in evidence to maintain a conviction?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on weak last-seen evidence without any independent corroborative links?
  • What is the required standard of proof when a criminal case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence?
  • Does an uncorroborated negative forensic report regarding the alleged weapon of offense render the recovery inconsequential?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif alias Rana Saqib and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 926 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-16
  benefit of doubtidentification paradepolice ocular accountmurderanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittalweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for the murder of two police constables and under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account given by police officials, the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted after the accused had already been in police custody, and the reliability of weapon recoveries and forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the FIR was initially against unknown culprits, the identification parade violated procedural rules, and material contradictions undermined the police witnesses' presence at the scene. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants on the basis of benefit of the doubt, reiterating the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade conducted after the accused persons have remained in police custody for several days?
  • Can a conviction for murder and terrorism be sustained solely on shaky ocular testimony and flawed forensic evidence?
  • Does a tainted piece of evidence corroborate another tainted piece of evidence under criminal jurisprudence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 238 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-16
  pre-arrest bailemigration offenceinfirm persondocumentary evidencebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 243 dated 02.08.2017 registered under Section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 at Police Station F.I.A./CC Multan. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of extracting money for employment abroad and his status as an infirm or old person. The court held that the petitioner has made out a case for pre-arrest bail, noting that the evidence is documentary and already in the prosecution's possession, the petitioner has joined the investigation, and his advanced age of about 70 years brings his case under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that documentary evidence in possession of the prosecution coupled with the infirm or aged status of an accused under the statutory proviso warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail at the tentative assessment stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused of advanced age is entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the presence of documentary evidence already in possession of the prosecution favour the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused has joined the investigation and no tampering of evidence is apprehended?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Aslam Parvaiz and 3 others2019 YLR 1721 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs U.B.L. and others2019 SCMR 1004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-09
  execution proceedingscourt auctioncondonation of delaylimitationconfirmation of auctionOrder XXI Rule 90 CPCFinancial Institutions Ordinance 2001recovery of decretal amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by judgment-debtors challenging the dismissal of their Execution First Appeals by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of their objection petitions against court-ordered auctions for recovery of a bank decree. The core legal questions involved whether a petition barred by limitation should be heard on merits alongside connected timely petitions, and whether an Executing Court can mechanically confirm an auction exhibiting severe legal irregularities even where an objection petition lacks statutory deposit requirements under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, setting aside the impugned judgments and auctions. The Court held that where multiple related petitions are filed, some of which are within time, all should be decided on merits if an order in the timely petition would apply to the time-barred one. Furthermore, an Executing Court cannot automatically confirm an auction without application of mind, and gross violations of auction procedure invalidate the sale regardless of objection maintainability.

  Questions settled

  • Should a time-barred petition be decided on merits alongside connected petitions filed within time where the decision in one applies to the other?
  • Can an Executing Court mechanically confirm an auction without applying its mind even if no valid objection petition is maintainable?
  • Does a physical impossibility in conducting multi-property site auctions simultaneously invalidate the auction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and another vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and others2019 YLR 2800, 2019 LHC 3256 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu vs The StatePLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 464, PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 519, 2019 SCMR 652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-07
  Criminal appealMurderAcquittalBenefit of doubtEyewitness testimonyPrivate complaintMedical evidenceFSL reportMotiveInconsistencies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302(b) PPC, initially sentenced to death and later converted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The case originated from a private complaint after the complainant was dissatisfied with the police investigation into the murder of his son. The core legal question revolved around the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution evidence, particularly the eyewitness accounts, given the acquittal of a co-accused by the High Court based on the same evidence, and significant inconsistencies between the eyewitness statements and medical evidence regarding the deceased's injuries. The Court also noted doubts about the presence of eyewitnesses and the promptness of the FIR. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentence, and acquitted him. The key principle reiterated was that the benefit of the slightest doubt must go to the accused, and if eyewitnesses are found to be chance witnesses or the prosecution story is concocted, plain acquittal is warranted.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs District Officer Health, Narowal and another2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 9 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 2018-01-25
  contract employeetermination of serviceage relaxationdepartmental lapsediscriminationvested rightlocus poenitentiaeservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the termination of the appellant's services as a Chowkidar on a contract basis and the rejection of his departmental appeal, after the department alleged he was overage at the time of his initial appointment. The core legal questions involve whether the department can terminate a contract employee for its own procedural lapse regarding age, whether a regular inquiry is required prior to termination, and whether the department's differential treatment of similarly situated employees violates the principle of equality. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the department cannot take advantage of its own lapses in recruitment, that a vested right is created upon appointment, and that discriminatory treatment violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and reinstated the appellant into service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a department terminate a civil servant's employment on the ground of being overage when the initial appointment was made after fulfilling all codal formalities without concealment by the employee?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the withdrawal of an appointment order once a vested right has accrued to an employee?
  • Whether differential treatment of similarly situated employees regarding age relaxation constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an employer take advantage of its own administrative lapses to terminate the services of an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq and another vs Muhammad Haroon2019 CLC 950 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1053 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18
  circumstantial evidencelast seenpolice confessionbenefit of doubtabductionmurdercriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the theory of last seen, extra-judicial and police-custody confessions, and the recovery of a weapon and the dead body. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of police-custody confessions under the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order 1984, the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence and delayed reporting of last-seen evidence, and whether the elements of abduction under Section 364 were met. The Lahore High Court held that police confessions made without a magistrate are inadmissible, weak circumstantial evidence cannot corroborate one another, recoveries from open places are not valid discoveries, and the last-seen evidence lacked proximity. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant on the principle that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a confession made by an accused while in police custody in the absence of a magistrate is admissible in evidence?
  • Can one weak piece of circumstantial evidence corroborate another weak piece of evidence?
  • Whether the recovery of an object from an open place without a valid disclosure statement qualifies as a discovery under the law?
  • Does accompanying an accused voluntarily on a pretext constitute abduction under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →