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.

• (1) Zain Khan (2) Taj Roshan & another vs (1) Taj Roshan & another (2)2018 SHC 627 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
• (1) Yamin (2) The State vs (1) The State & another (2) Yamin2018 LHC 2252 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-24
  Qatl-e-Amdbenefit of doubtocular evidencecriminal appealdeath sentencemurder referenceimprobability of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by an Additional Sessions Judge for the double murder of two individuals, Muhammad Akbar and Irshad Mai, under the charge of Qatl-e-Amd. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular evidence provided. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's narrative was inherently improbable and fraught with doubt. The court reasoned that the witnesses' claim of staying overnight at the small crime scene to discuss an alleged illicit affair was illogical and inconsistent with social norms. Furthermore, the complainant’s subsequent alteration of the accused list and the failure to produce key witnesses present at the scene undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court established the principle that where the prosecution's story is inherently improbable, inconsistent with the site conditions, and lacks credible corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The conviction was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the death sentence was not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inherent improbability of a prosecution's narrative regarding the presence of witnesses at a crime scene constitute sufficient grounds to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  • Can a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd be maintained when the complainant significantly alters the array of accused persons during the investigation?
  • Is the failure to produce key witnesses who were present at the scene of the crime a factor that undermines the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) The State (2) Haswa r Shah & another (3) Syed Amjad Hussain Shah vs2018 LHC 1692 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-18
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionlast seen evidencerape and murdercriminal appealdeath sentencestandard of proofbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the rape and murder of a minor. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence—comprising last seen testimony, extra-judicial confessions, and motive—was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found the last seen evidence unreliable due to unexplained delays and contradictions. Furthermore, the extra-judicial confessions were deemed suspect, as they lacked any logical motivation and were not corroborated by independent evidence. The Court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events pointing exclusively to the accused's guilt. Any missing link destroys the case. Additionally, the Court noted that the DNA evidence was negative and the medical evidence, while confirming the nature of the crime, failed to identify the perpetrators. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, reiterating that extra-judicial confessions must be received with extreme caution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession can form the sole basis for a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal standard for relying on circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction in a criminal case?
  • Can information provided by an accused be considered a discovery of a fact under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if the police already possessed that knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Syeda Anisa Sughra Jafri (2) Mst. Nikhat Fatima (3) Mst. Itrat Fatima (4)2018 SHC 969 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-17Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Omar Nazar Shah vs Bank of Punjab, etc.2019 CLD 707, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 622 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• (1) Syed Shabbar Razi Rizvi and another (2) Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, through its Secretary and others2018 PSC 539, 2018 SCMR 514, 2018 SCP 1059 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-05
  per incuriamcontempt of courtnatural justiceaudi alteram partemconstitutional petitionreview petitionjudges removalPCO 2007
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from constitutional petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by former judges of the Lahore High Court seeking to declare landmark judgments—specifically the Sindh High Court Bar Association case (PLD 2009 SC 879) and subsequent related rulings concerning their removal and contempt proceedings—as per incuriam and without legal effect. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners were condemned unheard in violation of natural justice, whether superior court judges are immune from contempt proceedings for violating Supreme Court restraint orders, and whether petitions under Article 184(3) are maintainable to re-agitate matters already adjudicated through review and intra-court appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the impugned judgments were well-reasoned, that natural justice principles have exceptions where individuals act in flagrant violation of constitutional orders, and that Article 184(3) cannot be invoked as a parallel review jurisdiction after statutory review remedies have been exhausted and dismissed. The key principle laid down is that an independent, deliberate violation of a judicial restraint order by superior court judges strips them of constitutional office protections in the absence of legislative validation, and such final judgments cannot be re-agitated via fresh constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether judges of the superior courts who violated a restraint order against taking oath under the Provisional Constitution Order 2007 are immune from contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution?
  • Can a judgment of the Supreme Court be challenged through an independent constitutional petition under Article 184(3) after the dismissal of review petitions against the same judgment?
  • Whether the failure to issue individual notices to judges affected by a generalized constitutional ruling constitutes a violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem under the peculiar circumstances of unconstitutional military interventions?
  • What are the precise parameters and grounds for declaring a past judgment of the Supreme Court to be per incuriam?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Syed Nauman Bacha (2) Syed Luqman Bacha vs The State etc2018 PHC 1383 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
• (1) Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi (2) Muhammad Sohail (3) Waqas Riffat2018 PSC 869, 2018 SCP 1197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-04
  state landland exchangeconsolidation of landhousing schemevoid ab initiopublic purposejudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the legality of the transfer, consolidation, and exchange of vast tracts of state land in Karachi by the Malir Development Authority (MDA) and the Board of Revenue, Sindh, in favor of a private developer, Bahria Town. It was alleged that valuable state land was exchanged for scattered, less valuable private land in far-flung areas in violation of statutory provisions. The Court held that under Section 10(2A) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act 1912, state land granted for public purposes (such as incremental housing) is strictly non-exchangeable with private or kabuli land. Furthermore, the MDA had failed to prepare a valid Master Programme or scheme under the Malir Development Authority Act 1993 before facilitating the private developer's project. Consequently, the Court declared the land grants, exchanges, and subsequent transfers void ab initio, ordering the state land to revert to the government, while directing the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to investigate the financial losses caused to the state exchequer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether state land granted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act 1912 can be lawfully exchanged with private or kabuli land?
  • Does a development authority have the power to exchange or dispose of land held merely as a tenancy under the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act 1912 before acquiring proprietary rights?
  • Can a statutory body delegate or abdicate its public development duties to a private developer without preparing a valid statutory scheme?
  • What is the legal effect of a land-use notification issued by an authority not empowered under the parent Act?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Syed Jarrar Ahmed & others (2) Works Cooperative Housing Society vs Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 922 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Swaraj Abhiyan and Anr (2) T.S. Singhdeo and Anr (3) Rakesh2018 SCInd 4 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
• (1) Sultan Muhammad (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Sultan Muhammad2018 MLD 1680, 2018 MLD 1680, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1273, 2018 LHC 252 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-13
  fratricidemurderdeath penalty commutationproof of motiveocular testimonysuicide pleacriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Sultan Muhammad, for the murder of his real brother under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness testimony given by close relatives, the plea of suicide, and whether the failure of the prosecution to establish a clear motive warranted the mitigation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony of the mother and sister, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon, proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby rejecting the theory of suicide. However, the court held that because the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the alleged motive and left the real catalyst behind the crime shrouded in mystery, and considering that executing the appellant would inflict further trauma on an already devastated family, the death penalty should be commuted. The court laid down the principle that the unexplained failure of the prosecution to prove motive, alongside mitigating circumstances regarding the genesis of the crime, serves as a valid ground to substitute a death sentence with imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unproved motive in a murder case can serve as a mitigating circumstance to convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Can a plea of suicide be sustained when the physical evidence and the locale of the firearm injury on the victim's head render it an impossibility?
  • Whether the testimony of close relatives, such as a mother and sister, can form the basis of a murder conviction when they are natural witnesses to an incident occurring inside a home?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Shamshad Ali (2) The State vs (1) The State etc (2) Shamshad Ali2018 LHC 2642 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-12
  criminal appealmurder convictionidentification paradejudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionreasonable doubtocular accountdacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the admissibility of a judicial confession recorded on oath, and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the ocular account unreliable due to the impossibility of identification in darkness with muffled faces and the absence of an identification parade. Furthermore, the court ruled that a judicial confession recorded on oath under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lacks evidentiary value. Additionally, the court noted that medical evidence cannot identify an assailant and that shifting prosecution narratives regarding the motive and nature of the crime undermined the case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and answered the murder reference in the negative, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs to prove guilt beyond any shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judicial confession recorded on oath under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 possess evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on an ocular account where the identification of the accused is impossible due to darkness and the use of face coverings?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a witness mentioned in the list of witnesses warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a supplementary statement that fundamentally alters the prosecution's narrative of the crime without explanation fatal to the case?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Shameer Ahmad (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Shameer Ahmad2018 LHC 2387, 2019 MLD 1390 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-18
  murder referencecriminal appealdeath sentence conversionmitigating circumstanceunproven motivenatural eye-witnessesapprehension at spotmedical evidencefirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Shameer Ahmad, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Nasir and sentencing him to death, along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case, established through ocular testimony and medical evidence, alleged that the appellant entered the complainant's house and fatally shot the deceased due to a grudge stemming from the deceased's marriage to the appellant's divorced wife. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the natural eye-witnesses, the consistency between ocular and medical evidence, and whether the failure to prove motive warranted a mitigation of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through consistent eye-witness accounts and his apprehension at the spot, but that the unproven motive served as a mitigating circumstance. The court concluded by dismissing the appeal while converting the death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of inmates of the house where a crime occurs can be relied upon as natural witnesses?
  • Does a site plan constitute a substantive piece of evidence that can be used to discard an eye-witness testimony without proper confrontation?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance to warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether prompt lodging of the First Information Report excludes hypotheses of false implication and fabrication?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Shah Behram (2) The State & another vs (1) The State (2) Shah Behram2018 KLR Criminal Cases 295, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 309, 2018 LHC 1327 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-07
  post-arrest bailbenefit of doubtmurderdelayed autopsyocular accountmotivedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction and death sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by an Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, for the murder of a 20-year-old woman. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by a desire to avenge an earlier murder involving the victim's family, shot the victim in her home. The High Court evaluated whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of significant improbabilities, delayed autopsy, and the acquittal of the co-accused. The High Court observed that targeting a female family member rather than male relatives present, combined with unusual daily routines asserted by witnesses and an unexplained delay in post-mortem examination, created severe doubts regarding the time and manner of occurrence. Furthermore, the acquittal of the co-accused undermined the alleged motive. Extending the benefit of doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and declined to confirm the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in the post-mortem examination creates reasonable doubt regarding the timing and credibility of the FIR?
  • Whether the acquittal of a co-accused linked to the core motive impacts the reliability of the prosecution's case against the principal accused?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the ocular account is riddled with improbabilities and unsupported by corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Shagufta (2) Fazal Rehman, Propeller Lines Welfare Association (3) Mir2018 SCP 1234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-06-20
  Zulfiqarabad Oil TerminalKarachi Metropolitan CorporationOil Tankers AssociationUrban infrastructurePublic interest litigationOperational compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the operationalization of the Zulfiqarabad Oil Terminal (ZOT) in Karachi, a project pending since 2007. Following reservations raised by the Oil Tankers Association regarding the terminal's readiness, the Court constituted a committee comprising municipal authorities and stakeholders to inspect the site. The committee's report confirmed that essential infrastructure, including parking for 1300 tankers, office facilities, utilities, and security measures, was largely complete, with only minor works remaining. The core legal question addressed was the feasibility of mandating the immediate relocation of oil tankers to the ZOT despite minor pending works. The Court held that the terminal was sufficiently prepared for operation and directed the Oil Tankers Association to shift their operations to the new terminal within four days. Furthermore, the Court ordered the Board of Revenue to transfer 50 acres of land to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation for Balochistan oil tankers, emphasizing the necessity of fast-tracking the completion of remaining minor works to ensure the terminal's successful and immediate functionality for public interest and urban management.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Court mandate the immediate relocation of oil tankers to a terminal if only minor infrastructure works remain pending?
  • Is the Board of Revenue legally obligated to transfer land to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation for the purpose of establishing oil tanker parking facilities?
  • Does the Court have the authority to constitute a committee of stakeholders to verify the operational readiness of public infrastructure projects?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Secretary S&Gad, Muzaffarabad and 3 others (2)Rafaqat Hussain Aw_ad49a9c32018 SC AJK 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• (1) Sardar Muhammad Usman Almani (2) Syed Mureed Ali Shah & another2019 PLD Sindh 43, 2018 PLJ Karachi 138, 2018 SHC 814 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-05Read full judgment →
• (1) Sami Ullah Baloch (2) Chaudhry Atta ur Rehman (3) Moulvi Muhammad Hanif and Others vs (1) Abdul Karim Nousherwani & others (2) Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad (3) Election Tribunal Balochistan thr. Additional Registrar, Quetta & others2018 PLD Supreme Court 405, 2018 PSC 603, 2018 SCP 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-13
  Article 62(1)(f)perpetual disqualificationhonest and ameenjudicial declarationfundamental rightsright to contest electionsArticle 63(1)(h)moral turpitude
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional matter concerns the proper interpretation and legal effect of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, specifically whether the disqualification or incapacity imposed upon a person by a judicial declaration regarding lack of sagacity, righteousness, honesty, or being Ameen is of perpetual duration. The core legal questions revolved around whether the absence of a specified time limit in Article 62(1)(f) implies a lifetime bar, how it interacts with the fixed-term disqualifications under Article 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether applying a permanent bar violates the fundamental rights to contest elections under Article 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lack of qualification under Article 62(1)(f) is the direct effect of a judicial declaration acting as the cause; therefore, as long as the adverse judicial declaration remains valid and in the field, the incapacity to contest elections continues. The key principle laid down is that because Article 62(1)(f) does not prescribe any specific period of incapacitation, a final and binding judicial declaration of dishonesty or lack of fiduciary duty results in a permanent bar on candidature that endures for the lifetime of that declaration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the incapacity imposed by Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 upon a person declared to be dishonest or not ameen is of perpetual effect?
  • Does the absence of a specified term in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 empower the courts to read a fixed time limit into the provision?
  • Are the qualifications under Article 62 and the disqualifications under Article 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 interchangeable for determining the duration of an electoral bar?
  • Whether the permanent disqualification resulting from an adverse judicial declaration under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right under Article 17?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Saeed Akbar (2) safi Ullah (3) Wazir vs The State2018 PHC 1353 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-11Read full judgment →
• (1) Sabir Hussain (2) Muhammad Shahid vs The State & another2018 LHC 2481 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-05
  sexual assaultrapeforensic evidenceocular testimonydelayed FIRcriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an appeal against a conviction under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sexual assault. The core legal questions concern whether the conviction is sustainable despite a delayed FIR, the absence of forensic DNA or seminal evidence, and allegations of political rivalry. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court held that a delay in reporting a sexual assault does not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case, especially when corroborated by medical evidence of physical trauma. Furthermore, the absence of forensic evidence does not negate a charge of sexual assault where the ocular account of the victim is credible and consistent. The Court emphasized that forensic reports are not necessary prerequisites for conviction when direct, confidence-inspiring testimony exists. Additionally, the Court established that a flawed or incomplete expert medical opinion cannot override direct and positive ocular evidence of culpability. The conviction was maintained as the totality of circumstances left no reasonable hypothesis of the appellant's innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of forensic evidence, such as DNA or seminal stains, automatically negate a charge of sexual assault?
  • Can a conviction for sexual assault be sustained solely on the basis of the prosecutrix's ocular testimony?
  • Does a delay in reporting a sexual assault to the police render the prosecution's case inherently unreliable?
  • Can a flawed or incomplete medical expert opinion override direct and positive ocular evidence of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Rustam Ali & another (2) Jam Nafees Ali Khan (3) Muhammad Bux vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2019 PLJ Karachi 34, 2018 SHC 795 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Raza Muhammad Gorar & others (2) Syed Jalal Mehmood (3) Abdul2018 SHC 790 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-05Read full judgment →
• (1) Rauf (2) Akhtar Zaman vs The State2020 MLD 290, 2018 SHC 736 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-03
  robberyidentification paradebenefit of doubtIMEI identificationdelayed FIRocular evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals filed by Rauf and Akhtar Zaman challenging their conviction and seven-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, originating from a robbery charge. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular evidence of natural witnesses could be relied upon despite significant material improvements, delay in lodging the FIR, lack of an identification parade, and failure to properly prove the identity and recovery of the robbed phone via IMEI. The Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence, noting substantial contradictions in the complainant's statements regarding whether the culprits were masked, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, omission of independent neighborhood witnesses, and failure to prove ownership or exact IMEI records of the allegedly recovered mobile phone. Finding that the ocular testimony lacked credibility and that direct evidence had failed, the Court reiterated that corroborative evidence alone cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements and self-contradictions by eye-witnesses regarding the identity of unmasked culprits render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the recovery of a mobile phone via IMEI number if the prosecution fails to independently prove the victim's ownership and purchase details?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to hold a formal identification parade when suspects are initially unknown to the complainant?
  • Can corroborative piece of evidence alone form the basis of conviction when the primary ocular evidence fails to inspire confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Rashid Ali Channa and others (2) Asif Ali and others (3) Fahad (4) Ashiq2018 SCP 1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-21
  Civil Review PetitionReview JurisdictionSupreme Court of PakistanDismissal of PetitionAppellate Jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Civil Review Petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question presented was whether the grounds raised in the review petitions warranted a reconsideration of the previous judgment. The Supreme Court, upon consideration, dismissed the Civil Review Petitions. The court held that the petitions did not meet the necessary criteria for review, though the detailed reasons for this dismissal were reserved to be recorded at a later date. The judgment affirms the principle that review jurisdiction is limited and is not an appeal in disguise, requiring specific grounds such as discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Civil Review Petitions liable to be dismissed?
  • Does the court have the authority to reserve reasons for a decision in a review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Peeru Ram (2) The State vs (1) The State etc (2) Peeru Ram2019 P Cr. L J 325, 2018 LHC 1972 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-13
  chance witnesscriminal appealdeath sentencebenefit of doubthomicide vs suicidemedical evidenceocular accountmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account and whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court identified the eye-witnesses as 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the crime scene was not credibly justified, particularly given the distance and the lack of natural human response during the alleged incident. Furthermore, the Court found the medical evidence, specifically the absence of a fractured hyoid bone and the nature of the ligature marks, consistent with the defense's theory of suicide rather than homicide. Applying the established principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • When can the testimony of a 'chance witness' be accepted in a criminal trial?
  • Does the absence of a fractured hyoid bone in a strangulation case support a theory of suicide over homicide?
  • What is the legal consequence when two interpretations of evidence are possible in a criminal case?
  • Is the failure to produce a witness who allegedly conveyed information to the police grounds for drawing an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Pakistan through Chairman F.B.R. & others (2) Pakistan through C_ecfed0422018 SCP 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-03
  tax exemptionProvincially Administered Tribal Areasconstitutional immunityadvance income taxsales taximportationburden of proofdiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals regarding the liability of industrial units located in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) to pay advance income tax and sales tax on imported raw materials. The core legal question is whether the Customs Department can levy advance income tax and sales tax on goods imported through Karachi port by businesses operating within PATA, given the constitutional immunity granted to such areas under Article 247(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that since the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the Sales Tax Act, 1990 do not apply to PATA, the Customs Department lacks jurisdiction to collect these taxes on goods intended for consumption in PATA. The Court upheld the mechanism of using post-dated cheques to secure the Department's interest while verifying the goods' destination. The judgment establishes that while the Revenue Department may conduct factual inquiries to prevent misuse of tax exemptions, the burden of proof shifts to the Department to prove fraud once an importer demonstrates the goods are destined for a non-taxable area.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Customs Department have the jurisdiction to collect advance income tax and sales tax on goods imported for use in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas?
  • Can the Revenue Department demand taxes on imports destined for PATA simply because the port of entry is in a taxable area?
  • What is the burden of proof when an importer claims tax exemption for goods destined for a non-taxable area?
  • Does the constitutional immunity under Article 247(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 extend to the collection of advance income tax and sales tax on imports?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (2) Prof. Dr. Masood Hameed Khan2018 SCP 1290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-09-14
  PMDCOrdinance-making powerde facto doctrineconstitutional interpretationmedical college admissionsCouncil of Common Interestslegislative supremacylapse of ordinances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of the MBBS and BDS (Admissions, House job and Internship) Regulations, 2016, and the legal status of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) following various amending Ordinances. The core questions addressed include whether the Council of Common Interests (CCI) must approve legislation concerning the medical profession, the effect of the lapse of amending Ordinances on the parent statute, and the validity of actions taken by the PMDC under lapsed regulations. The Court held that Parliament possesses absolute authority to legislate on matters in the Federal Legislative List without CCI approval. It further determined that amendments made via Ordinances do not survive the lapse or repeal of those Ordinances; thus, the PMDC's composition and regulations derived from lapsed Ordinances were invalid. However, the Court invoked the de facto doctrine to protect day-to-day actions taken by the Council. The key principle laid down is that the President’s Ordinance-making power is temporary and subject to legislative control, and an Ordinance cannot permanently alter a statute if it lapses without parliamentary enactment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Council of Common Interests have a mandatory role in the legislative process for matters in the Federal Legislative List?
  • Do amendments made to a permanent statute by an Ordinance survive the lapse or repeal of that Ordinance?
  • Is the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council authorized to implement a centralized admission program for medical and dental colleges?
  • Does the de facto doctrine protect actions taken by a statutory body whose constitution is subsequently found to be invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Omair Ali (2) Kamran alias Kami (3) The State vs (1) The State (2)2018 LHC 179 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-17
  benefit of doubtcriminal appealtest identification paradeocular evidencemedical evidenceforensic evidenceacquittalterrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for the murder of a police official and associated terrorism charges. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant discrepancies between the ocular account, medical evidence, and the forensic findings. The court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubt, noting that the ocular testimony was inconsistent with the medical report regarding the number and nature of wounds, and that the belated test identification parade was unreliable given the circumstances of the appellants' arrest. Furthermore, the court found the forensic evidence insufficient to establish the joint culpability of the appellants. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is contradictory and the investigation is poorly conducted, convictions cannot be maintained on moral satisfaction alone, and the accused must be acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained when the ocular account is diametrically contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does a belated test identification parade constitute reliable evidence when the accused were allegedly exposed to witnesses prior to the parade?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction if the prosecution fails to establish the joint culpability of co-accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction based on moral satisfaction when the investigation is found to be poorly conducted and fraught with doubts?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Niaz Ahmed alias Nazo (2) Ghulam Sarwar (3) The State vs (1) The State2018 LHC 2369 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-26
  criminal appealdeath sentenceinterested witnessesocular accountmedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Niaz Ahmed, and an appeal against the acquittal of his co-accused in a double murder case. The core legal question was whether the ocular account provided by interested witnesses, which the trial court rejected for fourteen co-accused, could sustain the conviction of the appellant, and whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The court reasoned that the prosecution evidence was contradictory, particularly regarding the medical evidence, and that the eye-witnesses were interested and inimical. The court established the principle that where eye-witnesses are disbelieved against some accused persons, their testimony cannot be accepted against others without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused, and since the prosecution failed to prove its case through unimpeachable evidence, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the acquittal of the co-accused was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be relied upon against an accused if the same witnesses have been disbelieved regarding other co-accused in the same case?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • What is the standard for setting aside a trial court's judgment of acquittal in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Nazir Iqbal (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Nazir Iqbal2018 P Cr. L J 1284, 2018 PCRLJ 1284, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1269, 2018 LHC 4473 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-24
  murderdeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesocular accountcriminal appealmurder reference
  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 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to death, which was also subject to a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal question concerned the determination of guilt based on ocular and medical evidence, and whether the death sentence should be maintained or commuted to imprisonment for life in view of mitigating circumstances regarding the deceased's conduct towards the appellant's family. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's case proven beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts and medical corroboration. However, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances established during the proceedings regarding the deceased's provocative conduct and interference in the appellant's matrimonial life, the court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that while brutal violence is unjustifiable, mitigating circumstances emerging from the record regarding the victim's conduct can warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and motive is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Can mitigating circumstances regarding the deceased's provocative conduct towards the accused's family justify the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the court can consider statements made to the police to extend a benefit to the accused under certain circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Nasir Mehmood (2) Rafaqat Hussain (3) The State vs (1) The State (2)2018 IHC 100 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-07-16
  murder referencejail appealadverse inferenceocular accountmedical evidenceforensic delayinterested witnessbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns jail appeals against convictions and death sentences for triple murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary gaps. The Islamabad High Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed. The court found that the reliance on a single related and inimical witness, without independent corroboration, was insufficient. Crucially, the prosecution failed to produce key witnesses, necessitating an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court further identified fatal contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, particularly regarding the nature of firearm injuries, and noted that an unexplained five-year delay in sending crime weapons and empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory rendered the forensic evidence inconsequential. Reaffirming that the benefit of the slightest doubt must be extended to the accused, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, thereby setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime weapons and empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory render forensic evidence inconsequential?
  • Can the testimony of an interested and inimical witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • When does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Naseem Akhtar (2) Dr.Mudassar Rasool vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace2018 PLD Lahore 903, 2018 LHC 1750 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• (1) M/s.Rashid Silk Mills (2) M/s.Dairyland (Pvt.) Ltd. & another (3) M/s.Ismail2019 PLD Sindh 189, 2018 SHC 1035 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• (1) M/s. Marosh & 24 others (2) M/s. N.S. Brothers & 26 others (3) M/s.PTCL 2018 CL. 603, 2018 PTD 1787, 2018 SHC 647 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• (1) M/s. FGBC Limited & Another (2) M/s. Fateh Textile Mills & Others vs (1)2018 SHC 763 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-12
  territorial jurisdictionoriginal civil jurisdictionimmovable propertyreturn of plaintleasehold rightsSindh Civil Courts Ordinance 1962Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  Summary & questions settled

  The case involves two civil suits filed before the Sindh High Court seeking declarations and permanent injunctions regarding leasehold rights to land situated in the Lakhra Coal Field, District Jamshoro. The central issue is whether the High Court possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain these suits when the subject matter, the land, is located outside the territorial limits of Karachi, despite arguments regarding the inapplicability of certain Civil Procedure Code provisions under Section 120. The Court held that it lacks territorial jurisdiction and ordered the return of the plaints under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for presentation before the appropriate court. The Court clarified that Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not extend the High Court's original civil jurisdiction to the entire province; rather, such jurisdiction is confined to the districts of Karachi under Section 7 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. When property is located outside Karachi, Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates that suits concerning rights or interests in immovable property must be instituted where the property is situated.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court to the entire province of Sindh?
  • Is the High Court empowered to entertain a suit regarding immovable property situated outside the territorial limits of Karachi?
  • Can the execution of ancillary documents in Karachi confer territorial jurisdiction upon the High Court for a dispute concerning immovable property located elsewhere?
  • At what stage of proceedings can a court exercise the power to return a plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd (2) M/s Karachi Electric Supply2018 SCP 1165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-28
  18th Amendmentlegislative competencetrans-provincial establishmentsIndustrial Relations Act 2012provincial autonomyextra-territorial jurisdictionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenged the constitutionality of the Industrial Relations Act 2012, arguing that the 18th Amendment, which abolished the Concurrent Legislative List, rendered the Federal Legislature incompetent to legislate on labour and trade union matters. The core legal question was whether the Federal Parliament retains authority over labour relations for establishments operating across provincial boundaries. The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Relations Act 2012 is intra vires the Constitution. The Court reasoned that while the 18th Amendment devolved labour matters to the Provinces, the Federal Legislature retains legislative competence for trans-provincial establishments because Provincial Legislatures lack extra-territorial jurisdiction. The Court established that legislative entries must be interpreted liberally to ensure their widest amplitude, and that the Federal Legislature possesses extra-territorial authority necessary to protect fundamental rights under Article 17 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Industrial Relations Act 2012 applies retrospectively to the interregnum period following the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act 2008, ensuring no vacuum in legal protection for workers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Industrial Relations Act 2012 is ultra vires the Constitution following the abolition of the Concurrent Legislative List?
  • Does a Provincial Legislature possess the extra-territorial jurisdiction to legislate for establishments operating in more than one province?
  • Does the Federal Legislature have the competence to legislate on labour and trade union matters for trans-provincial establishments?
  • Is the Industrial Relations Act 2012 applicable retrospectively to the interregnum period following the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act 2008?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Zulfiqar (2) Muhammad Gulfam (3) Mazhar Iqbal (4) The State vs (1) The State, etc (2) Muhammad Aslam & another2018 MLD 1828, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 572, 2018 LHC 276 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-29
  benefit of doubtmurdersuppression of injuriesappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittalocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against convictions for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, alongside other family members, committed a double murder following a dispute over the movement of a female family member. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused and the implausibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding the involvement of the entire family. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with reasonable doubts, particularly due to the unexplained injuries on the accused and the unrealistic assertion that an entire clan participated in the assault. The Court emphasized that justice must be administered based on truth and that the benefit of doubt must be extended when the prosecution's narrative is inconsistent with the evidence. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the incident appeared to be a one-man act rather than a collective criminal enterprise.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused during an occurrence cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the prosecution's narrative regarding the involvement of multiple accused is found to be implausible?
  • Is it safe to convict multiple accused on a capital charge when the forensic evidence links only one accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Yousaf etc (2) Bashir Ahmad vs The State etc2018 KLR Criminal Cases 235, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 865, 2018 YLR 1855, 2018 LHC · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-28
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of doubtchance witnessmedical evidence contradictiondelayed FIRprinciple of consistencymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, while a connected revision sought enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the reliability of ocular testimony in the face of medical contradictions, the effect of an inordinate delay in reporting the crime, and the principle of consistency when co-accused with identical roles have been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, doubtful presence of the eye-witnesses, material improvements in testimonies, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence without independent corroboration. The court laid down the principles that the presence of chance witnesses must be subjected to strict scrutiny, contradictions between medical evidence and ocular accounts weaken the prosecution's case, the acquittal of co-accused with identical roles requires independent corroboration to convict remaining accused, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
  • Does an inconsistency between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Should remaining accused persons be acquitted on the principle of consistency when co-accused with identical roles have already been acquitted on the same evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Younas (2) Eid Muhammad (3) Hammad Abbasi &2018 LHC 932 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-05
  ocular accounttest identification paradeanti-terrorismcapital punishmentmitigating circumstancecross-examinationforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arise from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for the targeted killing of a police officer and his driver in a terrorist assault. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular testimony, the validity of test identification parades, and the proportionality of capital punishment in light of forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses remained consistent and credible despite exhaustive cross-examination, and that the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through corroborative medical and forensic evidence. The court laid down the principle that while the right to cross-examine is fundamental in an adversarial trial, prolonged and harassing cross-examination aimed at fatiguing a witness into error is impermissible and must be checked by the courts. Furthermore, a negative forensic firearms match does not vitiate culpability established by reliable ocular testimony but may serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prolonged and exhaustive cross-examination aimed at fatiguing a witness into error is permissible under the law?
  • Can a negative forensic firearms match alone vitiate the substantive culpability established by reliable and consistent ocular testimony?
  • Does the absence of a positive forensic match for a recovered weapon serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Sharif (2) The State vs (1) The State & another (2)2018 LHC 2416, 2019 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-17
  murderstatement under section 342 Cr.P.C.acquittalappreciation of evidenceburden of proofcapital punishment
  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 based largely on his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question was whether a conviction can be sustained solely on an inculpatory admission extracted from an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the primary prosecution evidence has been entirely rejected by the court. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed a grave juridical error by convicting the appellant on the strength of his statement after rejecting the prosecution case. The appellate court established the principle that if the prosecution fails to prove its case against an accused person, the accused must be acquitted even if they have taken a plea admitting to the killing, and an accused's statement under Section 342 cannot be used to substitute discarded prosecution proof.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of an admission made in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence has been rejected?
  • Whether an accused person is entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding any plea taken by the accused.
  • How must a statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered and evaluated by the court in relation to the prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Saleem Khan (2) Bashir Ahmad and others (3) Dost2018 CLC 1693, 2018 PHC 1648 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-06Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Nasir & others (2) All Pakistan Postal DMO's Employee &2018 SHC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-15Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Jawad Hamid (2) Mushtaq Ahmad Sukhera vs (1) Mian2018 LHC 2091, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 911, 2018 LHC 1986 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-27
  private complaintsummoning of accusedpreliminary inquirycriminal conspiracyrevisional jurisdictionanti-terrorism courtabetmentquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two criminal revisions arising from a private complaint filed before the Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 19(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, relating to a deadly clash during an anti-encroachment operation. The trial court summoned numerous accused but declined to summon respondents No. 1 to 12, while the former Inspector General of Police challenged his own summoning. A three-member bench heard the matters to resolve complex legal questions regarding summoning orders, revisional jurisdiction, the scope of preliminary inquiries under Section 202, the use of inquiry commission reports, and the ingredients of criminal conspiracy. By majority view (2 to 1), the Lahore High Court dismissed the complainant's revision seeking to summon respondents No. 1 to 12 and dismissed the police official's revision against his summoning, holding that the trial court's order refusing to summon respondents No. 1 to 12 was not illegal or perverse as the allegations against them were an afterthought lacking essential ingredients of conspiracy at the pre-process stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for summoning an accused is an adverse order affecting their rights?
  • What is the scope and extent of an inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the pre-trial stage?
  • Whether statements made by persons before an inquiry tribunal established under the Punjab Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance 1969 can be used in subsequent criminal proceedings against witnesses or co-accused?
  • Does the bar against taking cognizance under Section 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to proceedings before Anti-Terrorism Courts under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What are the essential legal ingredients required to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Javed (2) Mst. Asia Parveen vs (1) The State, Etc (2)PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 290, 2018 LHC 221 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-15
  murderinterested witnessmaterial improvementdelayed post-mortemcriminal appealacquittalrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on interested witnesses, significant delays in the post-mortem examination, and material improvements in the ocular account provided at trial compared to the initial FIR. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the witnesses were highly interested, their testimony contained dishonest improvements, and their conduct—such as failing to confront the accused when allegedly seeing him flee—was unnatural. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the crime weapon doubtful due to the lack of independent witnesses and the illogical sequence of events. The Court emphasized that material improvements in testimony render witnesses unreliable and that delayed post-mortem examinations, without explanation, cast doubt on the promptness of the FIR. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed post-mortem examination, without explanation, create a reasonable doubt regarding the timing of the FIR registration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses make material and dishonest improvements to their statements during trial?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction if their conduct is found to be unnatural and inconsistent with the FIR?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during recovery proceedings violate the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Irshad, Assistant Engineer B-17, Highway Division Bagh,_9210e9c42018 SC AJK 10 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  locus standiaggrieved personservice rules amendmentquota for initial recruitmentpromotion quotaPakistan Engineering Council ActB.Tech Engineerspast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  The captioned appeals by leave of the court arise from a judgment of the High Court passed in a writ petition filed by Graduate Engineers challenging amendments made through notifications in 1999 and 2003 to the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Public Works Department Service Rules, 1992, which curtailed the initial recruitment quota for Assistant Engineers from 75% to 65% and enhanced promotion quotas for Sub-Engineers, including those holding B.Tech. (Honours) degrees. The High Court had disposed of the writ petition with certain directions regarding departmental rules and the assignment of professional engineering works. The core legal questions involved the locus standi of the petitioners to challenge service rule amendments made long before they acquired their qualifications, the applicability of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 to government-employed engineers, and the government's rule-making powers. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir held that the petitioners lacked locus standi as they were not aggrieved persons at the time of the amendments and could not challenge rules in a vacuum, and that the government holds the exclusive prerogative under the Civil Servants Act, 1976 to frame and amend service rules and prescribe qualifications for promotion. The appeals were accepted and the writ petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who acquires a qualification after the enactment of service rule amendments has the locus standi to challenge those amendments through a writ petition?
  • Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 regulate the qualifications and service conditions of engineers employed in government departments?
  • Whether the government has the exclusive prerogative to frame and amend service rules and determine qualifications for promotion under the Civil Servants Act, 1976?
  • Can past and closed promotions made under existing service rules be reopened after a challenge to those rules?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Ilyas (2) Fazal Arshad Mirza (3) Fazal Inam Sabir (4) Malik2018 LHC 1792 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-30
  post-arrest bailland fraudforgeryrevenue record fabricationex-parte decreebreach of trustprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail petitions filed by four individuals accused of land fraud, forgery, and corruption involving the misappropriation of common land. The petitioners allegedly conspired to transfer land through fabricated revenue records and obtained an ex-parte civil decree through suspicious and expedited judicial proceedings, with the active connivance of revenue officials. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petitions, finding formidable material against the accused. The Court held that even where offences fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the concession of bail may still be declined in appropriate cases given the gravity of the accusations. The Court emphasized that state functionaries, particularly revenue officials, bear a heavier onus to act with integrity, and their failure to resist fraudulent claims or protect state interests constitutes a serious breach of public trust. The Court further noted that reliance on fabricated documents and the misuse of judicial processes to facilitate land grabbing warrants the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can the concession of bail be declined for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the fabrication of revenue records and the misuse of judicial process constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in land fraud cases?
  • What is the standard of conduct expected from state functionaries in civil litigation involving public land?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Ikram (2) Sher Baz vs (1) The State (2) Muhammad Ikram &2019 KLR Criminal Cases 55, 2018 LHC 2240 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-30
  murdersupplementary statementbenefit of the doubtinterpolated documentsocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a woman inside her home, alongside a criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolves around the reliability of a delayed supplementary statement implicating the accused, extensive interpolations in police and investigative documents, and whether a conviction can be sustained based on contradictory ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's initial report blamed unknown assailants and that subsequent shifts in stance through interpolated documents and delayed supplementary statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 created insurmountable doubts. The court established the principle that a supplementary statement cannot be equated with a First Information Report or read in extension thereof, and where the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions and tampering, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be equated with a First Information Report or read in extension thereof?
  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when the initial crime report names unknown assailants and subsequent implication rests on heavily interpolated documents and delayed supplementary statements?
  • Does the existence of material contradictions and tampering in police records entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Idrees (2) Adnan Iqbal vs (1) Colonel Joseph Emmanuel2018 IHC 47 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-11Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Asjad Abbasi and others (2) Nawaz Akhtar and others vs (1) Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan and others (2) Capt. (R) Said Anjum and others2019 PLJ SC 1, 2019 P.S.C. (Crl.) 106, 2018 SCMR 2051, 2018 SCP 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-04
  environmental degradationforest conservationshamilat-i-dehwajib-ul-arzillegal constructionpartition of common landsuo motu jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses environmental hazards, deforestation, and illegal commercial construction on communal land (shamilat-i-deh) in the Patriata Reserved Forests and surrounding hill tracts in connection with the proposed New Murree Project. The core legal questions involve whether shamilat-i-deh can be partitioned, broken up for construction, or converted into building sites without government permission in contravention of the local Wajib-ul-Arz and the Forest Act 1927, and whether such acts are protected by fundamental rights or the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamlat) Ordinance 1959. The Court held that rights in shamilat-i-deh are not exclusive or unlimited, and breaking them up or partitioning them without government sanction and legal proceedings is illegal and unlawful. The ratio decidendi is that entries in the Wajib-ul-Arz and statutory rules restricting partition and use of village common lands for environmental protection prevail over private claims of partition and alienation, and illegal constructions thereon cannot be regularized on the ground of third-party creation or official acquiescence. The Court directed the government to retrieve all illegally occupied shamilat-i-deh land, ordered NAB to investigate, and referred implementation matters to a special bench.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land comprised in shamilat-i-deh can be partitioned or broken up for construction without the permission of the provincial government?
  • Does Section 3 of the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance 1959 neutralize the restrictive effect of a Wajib-ul-Arz regarding shamilat-i-deh?
  • Can restrictions on the partition and use of village common lands for environmental protection be challenged as violative of fundamental rights?
  • Whether third-party interests created through illegal construction and partitioning of shamilat-i-deh legitimize the unauthorized acts?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Asim Abbasi (2) Mujahid Hussain (3) Muhammad Ibrahim2018 SHC 584 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Arif Akhtar and others (2)Chairman and others vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-03
  Benazir Employees Stock Option SchemePrivatization Commissionconstitutional jurisdictionCouncil of Common Interestsstate owned entitiespublic moneyvested rightsdividends suspension
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of Pakistan Petroleum Limited challenging the directives issued by the Privatization Commission suspending the disbursement of dividends and retirement payouts under the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme (BESOS). The core legal question was whether the suspension of the scheme and withholding of dividends were lawful, and whether the creation of the Pakistan Petroleum Employees Empowerment Trust and transfer of shares to employees violated constitutional provisions including Articles 154 and 173. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the creation of the trust and transfer of public shares to a selected group of employees without the approval of the Council of Common Interests were ultra vires the Constitution and caused loss to the public exchequer. The court ruled that the disbursement of public funds as additional benefits without statutory backing was impermissible, that policy matters do not warrant interference under Article 199, and that contractual obligations cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that state-owned entity shares and public monies cannot be transferred to private employees as special benefits without strict compliance with constitutional mechanisms.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with policy matters regarding the suspension of state-owned entity employee stock schemes under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the transfer of shares of state-owned entities to a selected group of employees without approval from the Council of Common Interests violate the Constitution?
  • Can contractual obligations and trust-based monetary claims be enforced by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether the creation of employee empowerment trusts and distribution of dividends from public funds without proper statutory sanction constitute an unlawful use of public money?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Arif (2) Qadeer Farooq (3) The State vs (1) The State (2)2018 LHC 195 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-09
  circumstantial evidencelast seenbenefit of doubtmurder referencecriminal appealpointing outacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of a young woman. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the theory of 'last seen', the recovery of a weapon, and the pointing out of the crime scene by the accused while in police custody. The core legal question was whether these circumstances formed an unbroken chain of evidence sufficient to exclude every hypothesis of innocence and sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a credible nexus between the appellants and the crime. The court found the 'last seen' evidence lacked proximity in time and space, and the pointing out of the crime scene by the accused while in custody was inadmissible under the law of evidence. Emphasizing that conviction cannot rest on moral certainty without convincing proof, the court laid down the principle that where circumstantial evidence is fragile and fails to form a continuous chain, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is evidence of pointing out a crime scene by an accused while in police custody admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is not continuous and fails to exclude every hypothesis of innocence?
  • Does the 'last seen' doctrine apply if the witness testimony lacks proximity in terms of time and space?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Akhtar (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Muhammad2018 LHC 2292 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-11
  Qatl-e-Amdcriminal appealocular evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalindependent corroborationdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence for Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the acquittal of co-accused and the reliability of the ocular evidence in the context of long-standing enmity. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, particularly regarding the alleged ambush and the witnesses' miraculous escape from harm despite being within range of the assailants. The Court observed that the acquittal of co-accused, who were assigned similar roles, necessitated greater caution and independent corroboration, which was found lacking. The motive was deemed suspect, and the forensic evidence regarding the weapon recovery was insufficient to overcome the doubts raised by the witnesses' implausible narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant on the principle that it is unsafe to maintain a conviction where the prosecution's evidence is incompatible with the probability of events.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused in a murder case necessitate independent corroboration for the conviction of the remaining accused?
  • Is it safe to rely on ocular testimony where witnesses claim to have been present at the scene of a shooting without sustaining any injuries?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's narrative of the crime scene is incompatible with the physical evidence and the probability of events?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Afzal Kousar (2) Hayat Khan & 4 others (3) Sabir Hussain &2019 PLC (C.S.) 1258, 2018 SHC 499 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-27
  constitutional petitionpublic employmentKarachi Port Trustrecruitment irregularitiesstatutory rules of servicewrit jurisdictionservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector and Security Guard within the Karachi Port Trust (KPT). The petitioners alleged that the recruitment process initiated in 2012 was tainted by favoritism, nepotism, and the appointment of unqualified individuals, violating established recruitment rules. The core legal questions were whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked against the KPT and whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment despite the KPT's subsequent decision to scrap the entire recruitment process due to widespread irregularities. The Court held that the petitions were maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, as the KPT operates under statutory rules of service. However, on merits, the Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that because the entire recruitment process had been legally scrapped under government directives to address systemic irregularities, the petitioners had no valid claim to appointment. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is available against public authorities governed by statutory service rules, but such jurisdiction cannot compel appointments from a cancelled, irregular selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the Karachi Port Trust regarding service matters?
  • Can a court compel the appointment of candidates from a recruitment process that has been officially scrapped due to irregularities?
  • Does an organization governed by statutory rules of service qualify as a 'person' for the purpose of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Mst. Jameela (2) Mst. Shushila Ramesh Kumar and others vs Province of Sindh and others2018 SHC 1118 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-13Read full judgment →
• (1) Mohsin Raza and Adnan Haider (2) Nazia vs The State2019 YLR 3, 2018 SHC 650 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-25
  kidnapping for ransombenefit of doubtinterested witnessjudicial confessionanti-terrorismreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals filed by the appellants against their convictions for kidnapping for ransom and murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on circumstantial evidence, a confessional statement, and the testimony of allegedly interested witnesses. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the primary eyewitness testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration, the confessional statement was procedurally flawed and suspect, and forensic evidence was delayed and inconclusive. Furthermore, the court emphasized the failure to comply with mandatory search procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that interested witness testimony requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is the testimony of an interested witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to comply with the mandatory search requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be based on a judicial confession if the accused was remanded to police custody after the confession was recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Misbah-ul-Hassan (2) Syed Imran Haider vs (1) The State etc2018 LHC 1708 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-09
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionrecovery of weaponchain of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the Appellant for the murder of the deceased, based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case relied on last-seen evidence, an identification parade, and alleged recoveries of incriminating articles. The Lahore High Court examined the circumstantial evidence, noting that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain connecting the Appellant to the crime. The Court held that the last-seen evidence was uncorroborated and lacked proximity, the identification parade was procedurally flawed and conducted after the Appellant was already known to the witnesses, and the recoveries were tainted by non-compliance with statutory requirements and lack of independent verification. Emphasizing that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and unbroken to sustain a capital conviction, the Court found the prosecution's case replete with doubts. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the Appellant, and dismissed the connected revision petition for sentence enhancement, granting the Appellant the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is incomplete?
  • Is an identification parade valid if the accused was already known to the witnesses or if the accused was seen by witnesses prior to the parade?
  • Can eye-witnesses corroborate their own testimony by acting as attesting witnesses to the recovery of crime articles?
  • Does the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the recovery of incriminating articles doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif (2) Fayyaz Kaimkhani (3) Abdul2018 SHC 862, 2018 PLD Sindh 735, 2020 [M] C L R 1328 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-10Read full judgment →
• (1) Mazhar Hayat & 02 others (2) Muhammad Shahzad vs Province of Sindh& others2018 SHC 708 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-25
  constitutional petitionrecruitment policyfundamental rightsdiscriminatory conditionservice matterpolice recruitmenteducational qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the rejection of their candidature for the post of Police Constable (BS-5) in the Sindh Police Department. Despite successfully passing the written test, physical test, and interview, the petitioners were disqualified because their Matriculation certificates were not issued by a Board of Secondary Education located in Sindh, a condition imposed by the recruitment policy. The core legal question was whether this regional qualification requirement was ultra vires the Constitution and the applicable recruitment rules. The Court held that while the government has the authority to frame recruitment policies, imposing a condition restricting educational qualifications to a specific region is discriminatory and violates fundamental rights, particularly Article 27 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination in public service appointments based on place of birth or residence. The Court emphasized that the right to education and the right to seek public employment cannot be curtailed by arbitrary regional restrictions. Consequently, the Court directed the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, to re-examine the petitioners' candidatures without the impugned discriminatory condition and process their appointments if they otherwise meet the merit criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to hear a petition regarding the recruitment process of civil servants?
  • Can a government department impose a condition requiring educational certificates to be obtained only from institutions within a specific province for public service recruitment?
  • Does the imposition of a regional qualification requirement for government employment violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination?
  • Is a petition seeking appointment to a government post barred by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Maula Dad & 2 others (2) Tariq Amjad (3) The State vs (1) The State (2)2018 LHC 190 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-17
  double murderocular accountmedical corroborationquantum of sentencecommutation of death sentencesudden provocationcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Rawalpindi, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the double murder of a father and son and sentenced to death on two counts, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular testimony, the sufficiency of corroborative evidence, the viability of the motive, and the appropriate quantum of sentence where a sudden dispute over a water distribution project led to the killings. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness accounts were consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical evidence and forensic firearm reports. However, considering that the incident arose suddenly without previous serious enmity, the court altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the convictions and dismissing the appeal against the co-accused's acquittal. The key principle laid down is that while reliable ocular and medical evidence warrants a guilty verdict for murder, the alternative penalty of life imprisonment is more appropriate where killings occur under the sway of sudden provocation or in the absence of previous deep-seated enmity, respecting the sanctity of human life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ocular account given by eyewitnesses can be relied upon despite lengthy cross-examination when it remains consistent and is corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Does a sudden dispute over a village development project, occurring without previous serious enmity, justify commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the trial court in the absence of a miscarriage of justice?
  • Can a plea taken by one co-accused attempting to take sole responsibility for the crime be accepted when contradicted by clear ocular testimony implicating others?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Masood Ahmad Abbasi Advocate (2) Muhammad Umar vs Shahid2018 LHC 1891 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-25Read full judgment →
• (1) Manzoor Hussain and another (2) Shamim vs Khalid Aziz and others2018 SCP 1335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-11-23
  revenue recordfraudulent transferburden of proofevacuee propertytampering of documentscivil suitdeclaration of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a property dispute over agricultural land originally granted as evacuee property to the deceased parents of the respondents. The respondents sought a declaration and possession, alleging that the appellants' claim of ownership—based on alleged sales by the deceased parents—was fraudulent. The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondents, finding no proof of sale. The Appellate Court reversed this, but the High Court restored the Trial Court's judgment, citing a lack of evidence regarding the sale transactions and irregularities in the revenue record. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the appellants failed to prove the alleged sale transactions. The Court noted that the revenue entries relied upon by the appellants were suspicious, lacking essential details like CNIC numbers or addresses of witnesses, and that the physical register showed clear signs of tampering, specifically the insertion of a page to create backdated entries. The Court affirmed that the burden of proving the sale rested on the appellants, which they failed to discharge, and directed disciplinary and criminal action against the revenue officials involved in the record manipulation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving a sale transaction lie on the party asserting the transfer when the original owners are deceased?
  • Can revenue records be relied upon as proof of title when there is evidence of physical tampering and insertion of pages?
  • Is the absence of CNIC numbers and addresses of witnesses in an alleged oral sale transaction sufficient to invalidate the transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Malik Arif (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Malik Arif2018 LHC 201 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-15
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstanceunproven motiveocular accountinjured witnessimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and other offences following an incident where the deceased was shot dead and an injured witness sustained firearm injuries. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular and medical evidence, the establishment of the alleged motive, and the quantum of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case regarding the occurrence beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, prompt reporting, and corroborative medical and forensic evidence. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the alleged motive, which constituted a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction for murder but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the other convictions and sentences. The key principle laid down is that failure of the prosecution to prove the motive set up by it serves as a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily establish the motive set up by it can be considered a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the presence of an injured witness provide reliable corroboration for an ocular account in a murder trial?
  • Whether prompt reporting of a crime in the crime report excludes the possibility of consultations or deliberations?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Major Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas (2) Mansoor Pasha vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 67, 2018 SHC 550 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12
  contractual employmentmaster and servantmaintainability of constitutional petitionnon-statutory rulesNADRAtermination of servicewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the termination of the petitioners' employment by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The core legal questions involved whether the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 are statutory rules and whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable for service grievances of contractual employees of a statutory body governed by non-statutory rules. The Sindh High Court held that the NADRA service regulations are non-statutory rules framed for internal control, and consequently, contractual employees governed by them cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, as their employment is regulated by the principle of 'Master and Servant' and they have no vested right to regularisation or reinstatement. The key principle laid down is that where a statutory body lacks statutory service rules, writ petitions by its employees for service grievances are not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Database and Registration Authority Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 are statutory rules of service?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained by an employee of a statutory body having non-statutory rules of service?
  • Do contractual employees of a statutory organization have a vested right to seek regularisation or reinstatement upon termination?
  • Does the principle of 'Master and Servant' apply to the service disputes of contractual employees of NADRA?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Latif Masih (2) Saleem Masih (3) State vs (1) The State, etc (2) Yasir2018 LHC 2460 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-18
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceocular accountmotiverecovery of weaponacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Latif Masih, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside the acquittal of co-accused and a murder reference. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the corroborative value of medical evidence and delayed weapon recovery, and the benefit of doubt in capital cases. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene due to unnatural conduct and lack of bloodstains, that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony regarding a stab wound versus an incised wound, and that the motive and weapon recovery were unproven. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, and dismissed the connected appeal against acquittal and the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene is rendered highly doubtful?
  • Does medical evidence provide necessary corroboration to an ocular account when the eye-witnesses themselves do not inspire confidence?
  • Whether the uncorroborated recovery of a weapon sent for chemical analysis after a significant delay can form the basis of a criminal conviction?
  • What is the effect of the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence regarding the remaining appellant's conviction on a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Lal Badshah (2) Fida Muhammad Khan vs (1) The Chairman and one2019 PLC (C.S.) 1231, 2018 SHC 475 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-21
  pensionary benefitscost of living allowanceconstitutional petitiondiscriminatory treatmentArticle 25Karachi Port Trustservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by retired employees of the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) seeking the inclusion of a 7% Cost of Living Allowance (CLA) in their pensionable emoluments. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to this inclusion based on relevant Finance Division Office Memorandums, and whether the denial of this benefit to the petitioners, while granting it to other similarly situated employees, constituted discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the petitioners, having met the requisite criteria—specifically, receiving the CLA at the time of retirement and not having availed the benefits of the Revised Pay Scales 2001—were entitled to the relief sought. The Court established that denying pensionary benefits to a specific class of retired employees while granting them to others similarly placed is discriminatory and violates the constitutional guarantee of equality. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned action illegal and remanded the matter to the KPT authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Are retired employees of the Karachi Port Trust entitled to the inclusion of a 7% Cost of Living Allowance in their pensionable emoluments if they meet the specified criteria?
  • Does the denial of pensionary benefits to a specific class of retired employees, while granting them to others similarly placed, violate Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 against a public statutory entity like the Karachi Port Trust?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) K. Electric Limited (2) Syed Irtaza Raza Naqvi vs Registrar of Trade Union2018 SHC 419 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-15
  trans-provincial establishmenttrade union registrationres judicatalocus standiconstitutional jurisdictionindustrial relationscollective bargaining agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the registration of the Respondent No. 2 Trade Union by the Registrar of Trade Unions (NIRC), arguing that the Petitioner (K-Electric Limited) is not a 'trans-provincial' establishment, the Registrar lacked jurisdiction, and the registration process violated constitutional and statutory requirements. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, whether the Petitioner constitutes a 'trans-provincial' establishment under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the validity of the Registrar's actions. The Court held that the Petitioner failed to establish itself as an 'aggrieved party' with locus standi to challenge the registration. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Petitioner is a 'trans-provincial' establishment operating in both Sindh and Baluchistan, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the issues raised were already settled by previous judgments, rendering the current petition barred by the doctrine of res judicata and lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer challenge the registration of a trade union under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an establishment operating in more than one province qualify as a 'trans-provincial' establishment under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Is the Registrar of Trade Unions required to consult the Chief Justice of Pakistan when performing registration functions under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Does the doctrine of res judicata apply when the legal issues raised in a petition have been previously adjudicated by competent courts?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) K. Anbazhagan & Anr (2) R. Radha & Anr (3) P.G. Rajagopal vs (1) The Registrar General High Court of Madras & Anr (2) State of Tamil Nadu & Ors2018 SCInd 33 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-10-13
  fast track court judgespensionary benefitsad-hoc appointmentpensionable establishmentqualifying servicesuperannuation pensioncompensation pensiongratuityleave encashment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals filed against the common judgment of the Madras High Court which dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants seeking pension and other retiral benefits. The appellants were appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges (Fast Track Courts) on an ad-hoc basis from the Bar following the Eleventh Finance Commission Report and directions issued by the Supreme Court. Upon the discontinuation of the Fast Track Courts, they were relieved of their duties, and their subsequent claims for pension, gratuity, and leave encashment were rejected by the High Court on the premise that they were contract appointees and not borne on a pensionable establishment. The core legal question is whether ad-hoc judges of Fast Track Courts appointed from the Bar are entitled to pension, gratuity, and leave encashment under the relevant state rules. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were appointed against sanctioned posts within the judicial establishment on a pensionable establishment rather than on a contractual basis, and upon fulfilling the qualifying service criteria—including permissible additions—were entitled to superannuation or compensation pensions, gratuity, and leave encashment. The key principle laid down is that ad-hoc service rendered by judicial officers on sanctioned posts in a pensionable establishment counts towards qualifying service for retiral benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ad-hoc judges appointed to Fast Track Courts from the Bar are employed on a contractual basis or are borne on a pensionable establishment for the purpose of pensionary benefits?
  • Does the ad-hoc service rendered by Fast Track Court Judges count towards the qualifying service for the grant of pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978?
  • Are Fast Track Court Judges whose services are discontinued upon the closure of Fast Track Courts entitled to compensation pension?
  • Whether direct recruits from the Bar who served as Fast Track Court Judges are entitled to add past service or age-related weightage for calculating qualifying service for superannuation pension?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui (2) Mr. Justice Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan vs (1) Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad (2) Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad and another2019 P.S.C 773, 2018 SCP 1210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-10
  Supreme Judicial CouncilArticle 209in camera proceedingsjudicial misconductSJC Procedure of Enquiry 2005open court hearingjudicial independenceimplied powers
  Summary & questions settled

  These Constitutional petitions were filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by sitting High Court judges facing misconduct inquiries before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), challenging the SJC's refusal to conduct proceedings in open court and questioning the constitutional validity of the SJC Procedure of Enquiry 2005, specifically paragraphs 7 and 13. The primary legal questions were whether the SJC possesses implied power under Article 209 of the Constitution to frame its own rules of procedure and whether in camera inquiry proceedings violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 10A and 19A of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the SJC, as a unique constitutional domestic tribunal, inherently possesses implied and ancillary powers to formulate its procedural rules to fulfill its constitutional mandate. The Court sustained the validity of the 2005 Procedure, ruling that in camera proceedings safeguard judicial independence and protect judges' reputations against unverified allegations. However, the Court laid down that while preliminary scrutiny must remain in camera, subsequent inquiry proceedings should generally be open if the judge waives in camera confidentiality, unless recognized exceptions to open justice apply.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Judicial Council have implied power under Article 209 of the Constitution to frame its own rules of procedure?
  • Is paragraph 13 of the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry 2005 requiring in camera proceedings constitutionally valid?
  • Can a judge facing an inquiry before the Supreme Judicial Council waive the protection of in camera proceedings to demand an open court hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Jam Javed Ahmed Khan Dahar (2) Hussain Bux and another (3)2018 SHC 467 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ahad vs The State2018 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-01
  explosive substancesillicit armsbenefit of doubtfalse implicationsafe custody of case propertypolice witnessescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals filed by Abdul Ahad against his convictions and sentences under Section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, arising from allegations of possessing explosive substances and an illicit firearm. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of police witness testimonies, and the validity of the defense's plea of false implication due to a prior dispute involving the illegal detention of the appellant's brother. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions, discrepancies in evidence, failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area, and gaps in the safe custody and transmission of the recovered material. Laying down key principles, the court reiterated that if an element of reasonable doubt exists regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit must be extended as a matter of right rather than grace, and police testimonies lacking reliability cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions among police witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove safe custody and transmission of recovered case property?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when no independent witnesses are associated despite availability?
  • Does a substantiated defense plea of false implication due to a prior police dispute discredit the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Jumma Khan & 1 another (2) Zeeshan vs The State2018 PHC 1424 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan (2) Ramhit Patel vs (1) State of Maharashtra (2)2018 SCInd 48 · Supreme Court of India · 2018-08-14
  legal aidvideo conferencingincarcerated accusedaccess to justicecriminal appealSupreme Court Legal Services Committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two separate special leave petitions challenging the High Court judgments that affirmed the petitioners' convictions for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court's findings regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the rejection of the sudden fight theory were sustainable. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the merits of both cases, found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decisions and dismissed both petitions. Beyond the specific criminal appeals, the Court addressed a procedural issue regarding legal representation for incarcerated accused. It observed that counsel often struggle to communicate effectively with clients in custody, which hinders the quality of legal aid. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that to make legal aid meaningful, all Legal Services Authorities and Committees in every state must facilitate video conferencing between counsel and incarcerated accused persons, or those knowledgeable about the case, in all criminal matters to ensure the effective administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Supreme Court required to facilitate communication between legal aid counsel and incarcerated accused?
  • Are Legal Services Authorities mandated to provide video conferencing facilities for counsel-client interaction in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi (2) Abdul Wahab Baluch (3) Haroon Arshad2018 IHC 75 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• (1) Ikhlaq Ahmed (2) Muhammad Arif (3) Muhammad Ashraf and Others2018 PLJ SC 700, 2018 SCMR 1120, 2018 SCP 1180, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-04-23
  civil serviceregularizationrelaxation of ruleslimitationcontract appointmentservice tribunaltermination
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioners' appeals against their termination. The core legal questions were whether the appeals were time-barred and whether the petitioners' prior regularization, achieved through the relaxation of rules, was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that the appeals were correctly dismissed as time-barred. On the merits, the Court ruled that the regularization process was illegal, as it failed to comply with the mandatory preconditions of Rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The Court emphasized that the power to relax rules is not an unfettered discretion to bypass legal requirements; it necessitates recording special reasons in writing for individual cases of hardship. The judgment established that subordinate legislation cannot contravene the parent Act, and bureaucrats are obligated to uphold the law rather than blindly execute illegal directives from political superiors. Consequently, the leave to appeal was declined.

  Questions settled

  • Can contract employees be regularized by relaxing rules without recording special reasons for individual hardship?
  • Does the relaxation of rules under Rule 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 permit the circumvention of statutory appointment requirements?
  • Is an appeal before a Service Tribunal maintainable if the underlying departmental representation was time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Haris Nasim alias Khalid son of Nasim Ahmad (2) Mekaeel Mehmood2019 P Cr. L J 535, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 230, 2018 PHC 1757 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-31
  criminal appealconfessional statementjuvenile justicecircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtretracted confessionanti-terrorismcustodial torture
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder and terrorism offenses. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on confessional statements and circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the confessional statements to be involuntary, noting evidence of custodial torture, particularly regarding the juvenile appellant, and observed that these confessions were mere copies of statements recorded by the police. The Court emphasized that confessions by juveniles require rigorous scrutiny due to their susceptibility to coercion and tutoring. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the circumstantial evidence, including forensic reports and call data records, failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence linking the appellants to the crime. Additionally, the prosecution's failure to produce material witnesses warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, affirming that the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted confession without independent corroborative evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary standard for evaluating a confessional statement made by a juvenile accused?
  • Does the abandonment of material prosecution witnesses warrant an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction if it fails to form an unbroken chain connecting the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Haji Muhammad Mumraiz (2) Azhar Hussain vs (1) The State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 359, 2018 LHC 2245 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-29
  murderbenefit of the doubteyewitness credibilitycriminal appealacquittalinconsistent statementsinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder incident during an election campaign, wherein the deceased sustained a fatal firearm injury following a dispute over a plot. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically evaluating the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding the genesis of the incident and the shifting of the deceased to the hospital, and the impact of the investigating officer's conclusions exonerating the appellant. The court held that the prosecution case was fraught with material contradictions, mutually destructive statements by key witnesses, and improbable conduct, making it unsafe to maintain the conviction. The court laid down the principle that an accused cannot be convicted on mere allegations or moralistic presumptions unless the charge is supported by probable and consistent evidence, and where the presence of the primary eyewitness is doubtful and testimonies are irreconcilable, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions and mutually destructive statements between key eyewitnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can an accused be convicted of murder on the basis of allegations alone without proof fitting within the ambit of probability of events?
  • What is the legal effect of an investigating officer's conclusions exonerating the accused and arraying a substituted set of accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Hafiz Amjad Saeed (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Hafiz Amjad Saeed2018 LHC 185 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-15
  Qatl-i-Shibh-i-Amdvasovagal inhibitioncriminal appealmurder referenceculpable homicidemedical jurisprudenceDiyatTazir
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, who died following an assault involving punches to the chest. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s act of punching the deceased, which resulted in death via vasovagal inhibition, constituted Qatl-i-Amd or a lesser form of homicide. The High Court upheld the prosecution's ocular and medical evidence, confirming the appellant caused the death. However, the Court held that because the act of punching was not, in the ordinary course of nature, likely to cause death, the conviction under Section 302(b) was legally inappropriate. Instead, the Court applied the principle that the appellant’s culpability fell under the definition of Qatl-i-Shibh-i-Amd. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to Diyat and ten years of imprisonment as Tazir.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of assault not likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, but which results in death, constitute Qatl-i-Amd or Qatl-i-Shibh-i-Amd?
  • Is an assailant responsible for the consequences of an assault, including death resulting from vasovagal inhibition?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the nature of the act?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd (2) Soneri Bank Ltd vs (1) Soneri Bank Ltd (2)2018 SCP 1040 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-01-02
  interim saleBanking Court jurisdictionpledged goodshypothecated goodsres judicataspecial law vs general lawrecovery of finances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an order of the Banking Court directing the interim sale of goods during the pendency of a suit for recovery filed by a financial institution. The core legal question was whether a Banking Court, under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, possesses the authority to order the interim sale of pledged or hypothecated goods before a final judgment is rendered. The Supreme Court held that the Banking Court lacks such jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that Section 16 of the Ordinance provides an exhaustive list of interim powers—specifically restraint, attachment, transfer of possession, and appointment of receivers—and notably excludes the power of sale. The Court affirmed that the Ordinance is a special law that displaces the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding interim sales. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while the principle of res judicata applies to interlocutory applications, it does not bar subsequent applications if they are based on new facts or if the previous application was dismissed as premature without adjudication on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Banking Court have the jurisdiction to order the interim sale of pledged or hypothecated goods before the final judgment in a recovery suit?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to interlocutory applications in banking suits?
  • Can a Banking Court invoke the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to order an interim sale when the special law, the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, does not provide for it?
  • Does the dismissal of an interlocutory application as 'premature' operate as res judicata against a subsequent application for the same relief?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Ghulam Mustafa (2) Mukhtar Ahmed (3) The State vs (1) The State (2)2018 LHC 2257 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-10
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of the doubtcontradictory ocular testimonyprivate complaintcross-versioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased, alongside connected matters concerning the acquittal of co-accused and a state murder reference. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, particularly in light of material contradictions in the complainant's stances, unexplained circumstances surrounding the death of a cross-accused during the same incident, and inherent improbabilities in the narrative of the crime. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious doubts, irreconcilable discrepancies in the testimonies of injured witnesses, and mutually destructive accounts regarding the genesis of the occurrence. The court laid down the principle that minor injuries on witnesses cannot confer the title of truth upon testimony that is otherwise inherently unreliable, and where the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain cross-casualties and material aspects of the crime, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor injuries sustained by eyewitnesses can salvage a prosecution case that is otherwise inherently unreliable and fraught with material contradictions?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the genesis of the occurrence and the presence of the accused at the crime scene remain shrouded in mystery?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the homicidal death of a cross-accused during the same incident create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether inconsistent stances taken by a complainant between the initial crime report and subsequent statements are sufficient to dismantle the foundation of a criminal charge?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Ghulam Ali & others (2) Shahid Ali Bhutto & others vs Government of Sindh and others2018 SHC 675 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• (1) Fida Hussain (2) Faiz Ahmad (3) The State vs (1) The State & 8 others (2)2018 LHC 2347 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-09
  murderocular accountbenefit of doubtdelayed autopsyforensic evidenceacquittaldeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Minchanabad, which convicted the appellant of homicide and sentenced him to death, while acquitting the co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his co-accused intercepted two deceased individuals on their way home, tied them up, and shot them, an occurrence witnessed by the complainant and other witnesses who arrived on a motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the ocular account and corroborative forensic evidence were sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court observed significant discrepancies in the initial crime report, unexplained delays, and highly improbable timelines regarding the witnesses' arrival. Crucially, the court noted that the deceased's bodies were found semi-naked, a fact omitted by the witnesses, which suggested an entirely different scenario. Holding that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubts and lacked independent corroboration, the Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the other co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular evidence that contains material improvements and unexplained discrepancies regarding the crime scene?
  • Whether the failure of eyewitnesses to explain the semi-naked condition of the deceased's bodies at the crime scene undermines their claim of being present during the occurrence?
  • Does a positive forensic report of weapon recovery provide sufficient corroboration if the ocular account itself is found to be highly improbable and unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Daily Khabrain (2) Daily 'The Post' (3) Daily Khabrain (4) Daily Ausaf vs2018 IHC 129 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-06-21
  newspaper employeeswage board awardlimitation periodimplementation tribunalrecovery of wagesex-employeesindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple appeals and a writ petition challenging orders of the Implementation Tribunal established under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, regarding the recovery of wage arrears by newspaper employees. The core legal questions were whether ex-employees have standing to invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction for wage recovery and whether the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to proceedings before the Tribunal. The Court held that ex-employees are entitled to seek recovery of wages for the period they were employed, as the definition of 'newspaper employee' is inclusive. Regarding limitation, the Court ruled that since the Act and its Rules are silent on the matter, the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to proceedings before the Tribunal. Specifically, Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 governs such applications, imposing a three-year limitation period from the date the cause of action accrues. The Court established that while the right to wages is not extinguished, the remedy is barred if the claim is not filed within three years of the accrual of the cause of action, noting that recurring defaults create fresh causes of action.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex-employee invoke the jurisdiction of the Implementation Tribunal to recover unpaid wages?
  • Is the Limitation Act, 1908 applicable to proceedings before the Implementation Tribunal constituted under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  • What is the applicable period of limitation for filing an application for recovery of wages before the Implementation Tribunal?
  • Does the Implementation Tribunal have the power to review its own orders?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Capt. Abrar Arif (2) Capt. Hamid Khan Jadoon vs The Secretary2018 SHC 905 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Bushra Jabeen and others (2) Arshad Fawad and others (3) Faraz2018 MLD 2007, 2018 SHC 945 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03
  private schoolsfee enhancementfundamental rightsArticle 18educational institutions regulationright to educationper incuriam
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by a larger bench of the Sindh High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed by students through their parents challenging the exorbitant, unilateral annual increase of tuition fees by private educational institutions in violation of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 and the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005. The core legal questions involve whether statutory provisions and rules placing an upper cap of 5% on annual fee increases and requiring government approval for fee structures violate the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business under Article 18 of the Constitution, and whether a previous divisional bench judgment declaring Rule 7(3) ultra vires was correct. The court held that the right under Article 18 is not absolute and is subject to lawful regulations and reasonable restrictions. It declared that Section 6 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 and Rule 7 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005 are intra vires the Constitution, overruled the contrary divisional bench decision as per incuriam, and held that annual fee enhancements exceeding 5% without prior approval are illegal, directing private schools to refund or adjust the excess amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to carry on a trade, business, or profession under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is absolute or subject to reasonable restrictions and regulations?
  • Are Section 6 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 and Rule 7 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005 intra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether private educational institutions can increase their annual tuition fees beyond the 5% cap without the approval of the competent registering authority?
  • Does a judgment passed in disregard of binding precedents and existing statutory rules qualify as per incuriam?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Barrister Zafarullah Khan (2) Engineers Study Forum (Regd.), through its2018 PLJ SC 833, 2018 PSC 1681, 2018 PSC 1981, 2018 SCMR 1621, 2018 SCMR · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-07-05
  right to lifewater reservoirsfundamental rightsoriginal jurisdictionpublic interest litigationdam constructionjudicial oversight
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the urgent construction of the Diamer Bhasha and Mohmand Dams in Pakistan, addressing the critical necessity of water reservoirs for national survival and economic stability. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Court could intervene under its original jurisdiction to mandate the construction of these dams as a matter of fundamental rights. The Court held that the right to life, guaranteed under the Constitution, is inextricably linked to the availability of water. Consequently, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) read with Article 9 to direct the Federal and Provincial Governments, WAPDA, and relevant executive authorities to commence and ensure the early completion of the dams. The Court established an Implementation Committee to oversee the project and directed the creation of a dedicated fund, held in the name of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, to collect public donations for construction. The judgment lays down the principle that the judiciary, as guardian of fundamental rights, may issue mandatory directions to the executive for projects essential to the preservation of the constitutional right to life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to issue directions to the government for the construction of water reservoirs under the right to life?
  • Can funds deposited in the Public Account of the Federation be dedicated to a specific project under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to establish an implementation committee to oversee the execution of state projects?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Bahria Town through its Company Secretary (2) Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd2018 KLR Supreme Court Cases 203, 2018 PLJ SC 855, 2018 SCP 1195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-04
  forest land encroachmentdemarcation of forestrecord of rightssuo motu jurisdictionland exchange
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns allegations that Bahria Town encroached upon a vast tract of forest land known as Rakh Takht Pari. The core legal question revolved around determining the true total area of the Takht Pari forest—whether it was 1741 acres as claimed by Bahria Town based on past flawed demarcation reports, or 2210 acres as established by the 1956-57 settlement record of rights and historical gazetteers—and whether past settlement proceedings and court orders based on erroneous assumptions could be reopened. The Supreme Court held that the actual area of the forest is 2210 acres, that previous demarcation reports and land exchanges relying on the lower acreage were void ab initio due to collusion, misrepresentation, and erroneous assumptions, and recalled a prior disposal order. The key principle laid down is that fraudulent or collusive settlements and demarcation reports based on demonstrably wrong revenue assumptions possess no legal sanctity, and the Supreme Court is fully competent to pierce through past closed transactions to protect state-owned forest land from illegal encroachment.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct legal method to determine the true area of a forest land when conflicting demarcation reports exist?
  • Whether past settlement proceedings and court orders based on erroneous assumptions and concealment of facts can be reopened and set aside?
  • Does a prior disposal of a suo motu case bar the Supreme Court from reviewing the matter when the underlying proceedings are tainted by collusion and misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Bahadur Ali & others (2) Syed Kazim Ali Shah (3) Munawar Ali Wasan vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 792 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Azizullah Khan Afridi (2) Muhammad Asif Khan (3) Abdul Aziz vs (_b1f2b0862019 CLC 170, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1631, 2018 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-29
  local governmentadministrator appointmentultra viresconstitutional mandatestatutory interpretationprovincial government powersDMC West
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of the Government of Sindh's appointment of an administrator for the District Municipal Corporation (DMC) West. The appointment was made after an interim order from the Islamabad High Court restrained the chairman-elect from assuming office. The core legal question was whether the provincial government could replace an elected local council with an administrator due to the chairman's inability to take office, and whether the Vice Chairman could assume the chairman's duties. The Court held that the appointment of the administrator was ultra vires the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, and of no legal effect. It reasoned that a vacancy in the office of the chairman does not render the entire council non-functional. The Court affirmed that the Vice Chairman is authorized under Section 80(2) of the Act to exercise the chairman's powers when the chairman is unable to act. The judgment reinforces the principle that local government is a constitutional mandate under Article 140A, and provincial governments cannot arbitrarily supersede elected representatives or use statutory provisos to expand their powers beyond the legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a provincial government appoint an administrator to replace an elected local council simply because the chairman-elect is unable to assume office?
  • Does the inability of a chairman-elect to take office render a local government council non-functional?
  • Is a Vice Chairman authorized to exercise the powers of a chairman when the chairman is unable to assume office due to a legal restraint?
  • Can a statutory proviso be used to enlarge the operation of a statute beyond its enacting clause?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Army Welfare Sugar Mills (2) Shahmurad Sugar Mills Ltd (3) Faran Sugar2018 SCP 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-03-05
  sugar industryquality premiumsugarcane pricingsucrose recovery levelconstitutional viresbase recovery level
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed by sugar mills challenging the vires of Clause (v) of Section 16 of the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, and notifications issued thereunder regarding the payment of a 'quality premium' to sugarcane growers for sucrose recovery exceeding the base level of 8.7%. The core legal question revolved around whether the statutory provision and the enhanced rate of quality premium were unconstitutional or confiscatory, and whether the phrase 'from time to time' permitted the revision of the base recovery level itself. The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'from time to time' applies exclusively to the periodical revision of the rate of quality premium rather than the constant base recovery level of 8.7%. The Court upheld the constitutional validity and enforceability of the quality premium, ruling that it represents a fair share of the proceeds reflecting the joint labour of growers and mills, and dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the phrase 'from time to time' in Clause (v) of Section 16 of the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 permits the revision of the base recovery level of 8.7%?
  • Is the statutory provision requiring sugar mills to pay a quality premium for sucrose recovery exceeding the base level confiscatory or unconstitutional?
  • Whether the notification enhancing the rate of quality premium for the 1998-99 crushing season was legally valid and enforceable?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Amir Hussain (2) Ashiq Hussain (3) Mst. Gulshan Naheed vs The State &PLJ 2019 Cr.C.1442, 2018 LHC 2298 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-06
  kidnapping for ransomchild witnesstest identification paradecriminal appealrecovery of ransom moneyinvestigative lapsesAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the kidnapping of a seven-year-old child for ransom. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically addressing the reliability of a child witness and the impact of alleged investigative lapses, including the failure to conduct a formal test identification parade and the piecemeal recovery of ransom money. The Court held that the convictions were sound, determining that the child witness, who remained in captivity for weeks, provided credible and intelligent testimony that was not merely a product of parental influence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while police investigative lapses, such as the absence of a test identification parade, are undesirable, they do not automatically vitiate the prosecution's case when the evidence is otherwise consistent and supported by the recovery of marked currency notes. The principle laid down is that the testimony of a child witness, if found intelligent and reliable, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and procedural irregularities in investigation do not necessarily undermine a case firmly grounded in corroborated evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a child witness sufficient to sustain a conviction in a kidnapping case?
  • Does the failure of the police to conduct a test identification parade automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can piecemeal recoveries of evidence by the police be considered a ground to reject the prosecution's case if the evidence is otherwise credible?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Allana Mousa & 163 others (2) Sherbaz Khan Rind and 13 others (3)2018 SHC 702 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-23Read full judgment →
• (1) Allah Ditta (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Allah Ditta2019 P Cr. L J 172, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 843, 2018 LHC 763 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-10
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountcontradictory testimonymotivepost-mortem delayballistic expert reportcriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Vehari, convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337-F(v) PPC, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased and injured another following disputes over labor wages and the installation of an electric pole. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the proof of the alleged motive, the evidentiary value of delayed weapon recovery and post-mortem examination, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to material contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, unproven motives, unexplained delays in the post-mortem and forensic dispatch, and discrepancies in weapon descriptions. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, and any reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's narrative must enure to the benefit of the accused as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the death sentence not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction regarding the place of occurrence between the complainant and injured witnesses render their testimony untrustworthy?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when an alleged motive is set up but fails to be proved?
  • Can a delayed dispatch of crime empties to the forensic laboratory render the weapon recovery inconsequential?
  • Is the prosecution required to stand on its own legs even if the accused fails to substantiate a specific plea taken under Section 342 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Al-Haaj Azhar Iqbal Satti (2) Sajjad Khan (3) Jamshed Ashraf (4) Sheikh2019 [M] C.L.R. 1554, 2018 LHC 1880 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-25Read full judgment →
• (1) Akhter Umar Hayat Lalayka (2) Manzoor Ahmed (3) Awais Malik and others vs (1) Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhaira & others (2) Capt. (R) Zahid Saeed and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 1144, 2018 PSC 968, 2018 SCP 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-05-13
  out of turn promotionpolice serviceseniority re-fixationpast and closed transactionssuo motu reviewfundamental rightscivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses multiple Intra Court Appeals, Criminal Original Petitions for contempt, Review Petitions, and applications arising from the implementation of earlier judgments declaring 'out of turn promotions' in the civil service (particularly the Punjab Police Department) unconstitutional and violative of Fundamental Rights. The core legal question concerns whether police personnel who obtained out of turn promotions pursuant to judgments of the High Court, Service Tribunals, or the Supreme Court were protected under the exceptions created in the landmark case of Shahid Pervaiz v. Ejaz Ahmed (2017 SCMR 206), or if the doctrine of past and closed transactions shielded them. The Court held that the concept of out of turn promotion is inherently unconstitutional, that in-service employees cannot seek refuge under past and closed transactions, and expressly withdrew the exception previously carved out in paragraph 111 of Shahid Pervaiz's case by exercising its inherent review and suo motu jurisdiction. Consequently, all concerned appeals and contempt petitions were dismissed, and directions were issued to the authorities to finalize the re-fixation of seniority for all affected personnel alongside their batch-mates.

  Questions settled

  • Does an out of turn promotion granted pursuant to a judicial order constitute a past and closed transaction for in-service police personnel?
  • Can the Supreme Court exercise its suo motu review jurisdiction to withdraw exceptions previously granted in a judgment?
  • Are legislative instruments that provide for unconstitutional out of turn promotions considered void ab initio?
  • Does the omission of a statutory provision protecting out of turn promotions affect the judicial review of its constitutional validity under repealed status?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Akhtar Nawaz (2) Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs (1) The State, etc (2) Akhtar2018 LHC 1834 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-29
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtextrajudicial confessionlast seen evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionfabrication of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of Fazal-ur-Rehman under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established guilt based solely on circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen testimony, extrajudicial confession, and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed that the prosecution's evidence was inconsistent, particularly regarding the timeline of witness statements and the subsequent use of sniffer dogs, which indicated that the evidence had been fabricated or back-dated. The court emphasized that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form an unbroken chain connecting the accused to the crime. Because the prosecution's evidence was contradictory and lacked independent corroboration, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of sniffer dogs after the alleged recording of witness statements undermine the credibility of the prosecution's timeline?
  • What is the standard of proof required for a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence in a capital case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent and lacks independent corroboration?
  • Is an extrajudicial confession sufficient to maintain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Akhtar Munir (2) Ali Mahir vs The State2018 PHC 1525 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-13Read full judgment →
• (1) Abid (2) Jehanzeb Sharif (3) Hassan vs District Magistrate and others2018 PHC 1577 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-10Read full judgment →
• (1) Abdul Qayoom Solangi (2) Muhammad Shafi Khaskheli vs (1) Province2018 SHC 426 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-25
  surplus employeeabsorptioncivil servantcadrerepatriationconstitutional petitiondefunct organization
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged an order of repatriation and cancellation of absorption issued against the petitioner, who was originally appointed in the defunct Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization (SASO) and subsequently absorbed in the Excise and Taxation Department under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's initial appointment was as a Junior Clerk (BPS-5) or Assistant (BPS-11), whether the absorption complied with Rule 9-A and the parameters set by the Supreme Court regarding surplus employees and civil servant status, and whether non-civil servants could be absorbed into a provincial cadre. The court held that the departmental record was disputed regarding the initial appointment and that non-civil servants from defunct autonomous bodies could not be absorbed into a regular departmental cadre in violation of established legal parameters. The court disposed of the petitions, directing the competent authority to determine the initial appointment status and pass an appropriate order in light of Rule 9-A and binding Supreme Court precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a non-civil servant from a defunct autonomous body be absorbed into a regular government department cadre under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974?
  • What are the parameters for appointing a surplus employee by transfer under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974?
  • Whether an employee's disputed initial appointment and designation require factual determination by the competent authority before regular absorption can be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Abdul Malik (2) Muhammad Ikram & another (3) The State vs (1) The State (2) Abdul Malik2019 MLD 352, PLJ 2019 Cr.C.1437, 2018 LHC 2355 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-10
  criminal appealmurderdeath sentenceocular evidenceforensic evidenceinjured witnessacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the existence of deep-seated enmity, conflicting narratives regarding the death of a family member of the appellants (Mazhar Ilahi), and discrepancies in the forensic evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with doubt, particularly regarding the motive and the circumstances of the incident, including the unexplained removal of the deceased's body and the lack of forensic matching for the weapon attributed to the primary accused. The Court emphasized that while injured witnesses confirm presence, they do not automatically confer truthfulness, and forensic evidence that fails to corroborate the ocular account in a case of intense enmity cannot be safely relied upon. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injured witnesses automatically confer truthfulness upon their testimony in a criminal trial?
  • Can forensic evidence that fails to match the weapon of the primary accused be used to corroborate ocular testimony?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's narrative regarding the motive and the sequence of events is inherently improbable and unsupported by physical evidence?
  Read full judgment →