Summary: Background: In this case, the appellants were convicted for the murder of Irfanullah, who had gone missing on November 8, 2009, after being hired to transport maize using his generator tractor. After an investigation, the appellants were arrested and charged under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellants filed appeals, which were later transferred from the Peshawar High Court to the Federal Shariat Court. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, based on circumstantial recovery, was sufficient to convict the appellants. ---2) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the skeletal remains recovered belonged to the deceased. ---3) Whether the absence of key evidence such as post-mortem reports, ballistic matching, and recovery of the stolen tractor made the prosecution’s case unreliable. ---4) Whether the learned trial court properly appreciated the evidence before convicting the appellants. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court found that the prosecution's evidence was largely circumstantial and lacked concrete proof to establish the appellants' guilt. Specifically: The recovery of a skeleton, said to be of the deceased, was not supported by a post-mortem report or any medical evidence confirming the identity. The recovery of a weapon and other articles was insufficient to link the accused to the crime, especially in the absence of forensic or ballistic evidence. The appellants had denied all charges, and there were discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, raising doubts about the reliability of the investigation. As a result, the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their release. ---- Citations/Precedents: 1957 PLD SC (Pak) 257 1987 SCMR 1177 1985 PLD SS (AJK) 125 2005 PLD SC 63 at pg 75 2012 SLR (FSC) 508 ca 1991 PLJ (LHR) 396 1981 SCMR 435 2004 SCMR 1178 2012 SLR (FSC) 625 cb 1973 PLD SC 49 2005 YLR 2032 2007 PLD SC 539

Summary: Background: The appellant, convicted under section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine, challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge dated 28.07.2009. The case involves a crime under section 302 and 364-A PPC read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant was found guilty of murdering a four-year-old girl, Misbah, whose body was discovered in a sugarcane field with multiple injuries. ----Issues: 1- Whether the confession made by the appellant was admissible and met the required legal standards. 2- Whether the evidence presented, including the confessional statement and recovery of the crime weapon, was sufficient to support the conviction. 3- Whether the appellant's mental fitness was adequately assessed and considered in the trial. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the significance of the appellant's confessional statement, which was made voluntarily and in the presence of a magistrate. Despite challenges regarding the appellant's mental state, the court found that the legal requirements for recording the confession were met. The evidence, including the confessional statement and the recovery of the crime weapon, was deemed sufficient to connect the appellant to the crime. The prosecution's case was supported by corroborative evidence despite some witnesses not fully supporting the prosecution's claims. ----Citations/Precedents: Asif Mahmood Versus The State, 2005 SCMR 515 Zafar Ali and another Versus The State, 1994 PCr.LJ 956 Anwar Shamim and another Versus The State, 2010 SCMR 1791 Jamshed Khan Versus Muhammad Saeed and others, 2010 SCMR 1796 Muhammad Amin Versus The State, PLD 2006 Supreme Court 219 Zakir Khan and others Versus The State, 1995 SCMR 1793 Mian Ranjha Versus The State, 1995 SCMR 1806 Sh. Muhammad Amjad Versus The State, PLD 2003 Supreme Court 704

Summary: Acquittal --- Background: Both appeals arise from the same judgment in a criminal case involving two appellants, challenging their convictions and sentences related to the murder and kidnapping of a minor. The appellants were convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 302 and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), along with other charges, and were sentenced to life imprisonment with fines. ----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, primarily involving last-seen witnesses, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the appellants were improperly convicted based on the evidence that was allegedly unreliable or insufficient. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court consolidated and decided both appeals together. The court scrutinized the evidence provided by the prosecution, including witness testimonies about the last-seen evidence. It was found that: The evidence from witnesses about seeing the deceased with the appellants was inconsistent and doubtful. The timing and identification details provided by the witnesses did not reliably establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime. The testimonies of the last-seen witnesses were considered unreliable due to inconsistencies and delays in recording their statements. The prosecution's reliance on these witnesses and their statements was deemed insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for conviction. As a result, the court held that the evidence against the appellants did not conclusively prove their guilt. Therefore, the appeals were decided in favor of the appellants, leading to their acquittal. ----Citations/Precedents: 1990 SCMR 1272 (Muhammad Younas etc Vs. The State) 2015 SCMR 155 (Imran alias Dully and another Vs. The State) SCMR 2012 327 (Khalid alias Khalid and three others Vs. The State)

Summary: Background: Three Shariat Petitions have been filed challenging various provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulations, 2011 (FCR). The petitions address the following: Petition No. 4/1 of 2013: Challenges multiple sections including Sections 8, 11, 21, 23 to 26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, and 52 of the FCR. Petition No. 1/1 of 2013: Challenges Section 8 of the FCR. Petition No. 11/1 of 2013: Challenges Sections 8 and 11 of the FCR. The sections in question involve various aspects of civil and criminal justice, including the role of councils of elders, fines, and punishments related to crimes and customs. ----Issues: 1- Whether the impugned sections of the FCR violate the Injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the provisions of the FCR are contrary to the principles of justice as outlined in Islamic law. 3- Whether the FCR's practices related to evidence, punishment, and procedural aspects align with Islamic teachings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court reviewed the challenged provisions of the FCR and determined the following: The majority of the impugned sections, except Section 30, were found not to be in violation of Islamic Injunctions. The court noted that the challenged provisions largely reflect the customs and practices prevalent in the region and have historical significance. Section 30, which prescribes a punishment for adultery different from that outlined in Islamic teachings, was identified as conflicting with Islamic Injunctions. The court emphasized that the FCR's provisions, while rooted in regional customs, must align with Islamic principles where applicable. The court also highlighted that the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court includes examining laws for their compliance with Islamic Injunctions, and the Constitution’s provisions on this matter cannot be overridden by Presidential Orders. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1989 Part 1 Page 50: Relevant for discussions on the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court and its powers. SCMR 1993: Supported the findings on the jurisdictional aspects and the applicability of constitutional provisions over Presidential Orders.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The case involved four individuals accused of armed robbery and illegal possession of firearms. The complainant reported that on the night of February 19, 2014, four armed men, disguised as military personnel, entered his home, locked the family in a room, and stole 12 tolas of gold, cash, and firearms. The police investigation led to the arrest of the accused and the recovery of some stolen items and weapons. The case was tried in the District & Sessions Court, Shangla. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution could establish the involvement of the accused in the armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the evidence collected, including the recoveries made by the police, was admissible and reliable. 3- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the relationship between the witnesses and the complainant affected the credibility of the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, leading to doubts about the guilt of the accused. Key issues included: Delay in FIR Filing: The FIR was lodged three days after the incident, raising concerns about possible consultation and fabrication of evidence. Identification of Accused: The complainant admitted that the faces of the accused were covered during the robbery, making it difficult to identify them. This cast doubt on the accuracy of their identification by the complainant. Recovery of Stolen Items: The prosecution failed to present conclusive evidence that the recovered items belonged to the complainant. The gold recovered exceeded the amount reported stolen, and the weapons recovered were not clearly linked to the accused or properly licensed. Witness Credibility: Several key witnesses were closely related to the complainant, leading the court to question their impartiality and the reliability of their testimonies. Given these issues, the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused were acquitted and ordered to be released from custody.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted by the District & Sessions Judge/Judge Juvenile Court, Charsadda, under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 70,000 each, or in default, to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The conviction was based on the allegation that the appellants, along with others, had committed the murder of a person and stolen a generator tractor trolley. The appellants were implicated after the police investigation and were arrested, with the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the deceased's skeleton, mobile phone, and identity card, as well as the alleged confessional statements of a co-accused. ----Issues: 1- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support the conviction of the appellants. 2- Whether the prosecution's delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) and the lack of key evidentiary support weakened the case against the appellants. 3- Whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence before convicting the appellants. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court found that the prosecution's case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, which was insufficient to support the conviction of the appellants. The court highlighted several critical issues with the prosecution's case: There was no eye-witness testimony, and the identification of the skeleton as that of the deceased was dubious, with no post-mortem or medical report to substantiate the claim. The recovery of the crime weapon was questionable since no empties were recovered from the crime scene, nor was any ballistic report provided to confirm its use in the murder. The delay in lodging the FIR and the failure to produce critical witnesses and evidence, such as the recovery of the generator tractor trolley and the absence of a confessional statement from the accused before a magistrate, further cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released. ----Citations/Precedents: 1957 PLD SC (Pak) 257 2012 SLR (FSC) 508 2012 SLR (FSC) 625 1987 SCMR 1177 1991 PLJ (LHR) 396 1973 PLD SC 49 1985 PLD SS (AJK) 125 1981 SCMR 435 2005 YLR 2032 2005 PLD SC 63 at pg 75 2004 SCMR 1178 2007 PLD SC 539

Summary: Background: The case involves three connected Shariat Petitions challenging various sections of the Frontier Crimes Regulations, 2011 (FCR), particularly Sections 8, 11, 21, 23-26, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, and 52. The petitioners argued that these sections are against the Injunctions of Islam. The petitions were heard together and decided through a single judgment. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction to hear the petitions. 2- Whether the challenged sections of the FCR are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. Court's Findings ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court held that Presidential Order No.5 of 1984, which purported to exclude the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court over FATA, does not have the authority to override the constitutional powers granted to the Court. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petitions. Sections 8, 11, 21, 23-26, 32, 34, 36, 40, and 52: The Court found these sections to be in line with the customs, usages, and traditions of the area and not repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Court highlighted that customs and usage play an important role in Islamic law and that these sections were consistent with Islamic principles of justice and administration. Section 30 (Adultery): The Court found Section 30 of the FCR, which prescribes a punishment of five years for adultery, to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Court noted that Islamic law mandates more severe punishments for adultery, including flogging or stoning, depending on the circumstances. The petitions challenging Sections 8, 11, 21, 23-26, 32, 34, 36, 40, and 52 were dismissed as the Court found these sections to be consistent with Islamic law. The petition challenging Section 30 was allowed. The Court directed the Federal Government, the Government of KPK, and other concerned authorities to amend Section 30 to bring it in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam. The necessary amendments must be made by May 31, 2017. If not amended by this date, Section 30 will become void and have no effect. The Court dismissed the personal reliefs sought by the petitioners, stating that such reliefs are beyond the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 203D of the Constitution. ----Citations/Precedents: The judgment relied on various Quranic verses and Hadiths to support its decision, especially regarding the punishment for adultery.

Summary: Background: The appeals involve a criminal case in which the complainant, through appeal, challenged the acquittal of two accused, Shehzad alias Chirya and Sajid Ali, in a murder case. The incident occurred on November 21, 2008, where the deceased was found shot dead in his shop. The prosecution relied on confessional statements, recovery of a crime pistol, and the deceased's mobile phone as evidence. The defense argued that the case was fabricated, and the evidence was insufficient and unreliable. ----Issues: 1- Whether the confessional statements of the accused were voluntary and credible. 2- Whether the recovery of the crime pistol and mobile phone was sufficient to link the accused to the murder. 3- Whether the prosecution's case, based on circumstantial evidence, was proved beyond reasonable doubt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the acquittal of the accused. The court found the confessional statements unreliable, as they appeared to have been obtained under duress and were inconsistent with other evidence. The court also questioned the credibility of the evidence regarding the recovery of the crime pistol and mobile phone, noting procedural lapses and lack of proper chain of custody. Additionally, the medical evidence suggested inconsistencies with the prosecution's narrative, leading the court to conclude that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1975 SC 187 - Dhani Bakhsh Vs. The State PLD 2006 SC 697 - Wattan Party Vs. Federation of Pakistan

Summary: Background: The case involves the prosecution of an accused under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, following allegations made by the complainant, a student, who claimed that the accused had forcibly taken her to his house and attempted to commit zina (forcible sexual intercourse). The trial court acquitted the accused, and the State, along with the complainant, filed appeals against the acquittal. The appeals were heard by the Federal Shariat Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused of charges under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. 2- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, including oral testimonies and medical reports, was sufficient to convict the accused. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, dismissing the appeals on the following grounds: Investigation and Procedural Flaws: The investigation was conducted improperly, with the police failing to register a First Information Report (FIR) as required by law. Instead, they conducted an inquiry under section 157(2) Cr.P.C., which was not applicable in this case. The police's actions, including obtaining a medical certificate without first registering the FIR, were outside their legal powers. Inconsistent and Contradictory Testimonies: The testimonies of the complainant and witnesses were inconsistent. The complainant provided conflicting statements regarding the nature of the offense. Additionally, the key witnesses failed to corroborate the complainant’s allegations of zina-bil-jabr. Medical Evidence: The medical certificate presented by the prosecution was unverified, as neither the examining doctor nor the nurse who conducted the examination was produced before the court. The certificate, which indicated that no penetration had occurred and that the complainant’s hymen was "old ruptured," failed to support the prosecution's case. Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The prosecution failed to provide independent evidence to support the occurrence of the offense. The identification parade was improperly conducted, further weakening the prosecution's case. The Court concluded that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 154 Cr.P.C.: Mandates the registration of an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offense. Section 157 Cr.P.C.: Addresses the procedure for investigating suspected cognizable offenses, which was incorrectly applied in this case. Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979: Relevant legal provisions under which the accused was charged.

Summary: Background: This case involves multiple appellants who were convicted under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for committing dacoity and murder. The appellants were charged with robbing a poultry farm and murdering Bakht Bahadur, the brother of the complainant. The appellants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lasbela at Hub. The appellants filed appeals challenging their convictions, while the complainant sought enhancement of their sentences. ----Issues: 1- Whether the convictions of the appellants were supported by sufficient evidence. 2- Whether the confessional statement of one of the appellants, Jamshaid, was voluntary and could be used against all the accused. 3- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including recoveries and confessions, was sufficient to uphold the convictions. 4- Whether the sentences imposed by the trial court were appropriate or should be enhanced. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Conviction Based on Confession and Circumstantial Evidence: The court found that the confessional statement of appellant Jamshaid, though retracted, was corroborated by other circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon (stick/danda), mobile phone of the deceased, and weighbridge receipts related to the sale of stolen chickens. Outcome: The court upheld the convictions of the appellants based on the confessional statement and the corroborating circumstantial evidence. --Voluntariness and Use of Confession: The court examined the voluntariness of Jamshaid’s confession and found that it was made voluntarily and not under duress, as confirmed by the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the confession. The court also noted that the confession could be used against the other appellants under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which allows a confession by one accused to be considered against others when they are tried jointly. The confession was held to be admissible and was used as evidence against all the appellants. --Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon, the mobile phone, and receipts from the sale of the stolen chickens, sufficiently connected the appellants to the crime. The evidence was consistent with the confessional statement and supported the prosecution’s case. The court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. --Sentencing: The trial court had sentenced appellants Saifullah and Muhammad Siddique to life imprisonment and the other appellants to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The court found that the sentence for Jamshaid was too lenient given his active role in the crime. Outcome: The court enhanced Jamshaid’s sentence from ten years to life imprisonment, while upholding the sentences of the other appellants. The complainant's revision for sentence enhancement was partly accepted. ----Citations/Precedents: Wazir Khan vs. The State (1989 SCMR 446) The State vs. Minhun alias Gul Hassan (PLD 1964 SC 813) Muslim Shah vs. The State (PLD 2005 SC 168) Khuda Bakhsh vs. The State (2004 SCMR 331) Sher Dil and others vs. The State and others (2003 YLR 110) These precedents supported the court’s decision to consider the retracted confession as evidence and to enhance the sentence of Jamshaid.