Summary: Background: The appellant filed a criminal appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, which dismissed his complaint under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The complaint stemmed from an earlier petition filed by one of the respondents, accusing the appellant and others of committing zina-bil-jabr (rape). The police investigation found the allegations to be false, and the original petition was withdrawn. -----Issues: 1- Whether the dismissal of the appellant's complaint under section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was justified. 2- Whether the respondents, particularly the female respondent who initially filed the zina-bil-jabr petition, committed the offense of Qazf by falsely accusing the appellant. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the appellant's complaint was filed 21 months after the withdrawal of the original petition, indicating potential foul play on the appellant's part. Moreover, the court noted that the requirements of section 3 of the Offence of Qazf Ordinance were not fulfilled, as there was no positive finding by the court that the female respondent had given false evidence or made a false accusation of zina-bil-jabr. The female respondent did not appear before the court to make any statement, and the mere presence of her photograph on the complaint was insufficient to prove its authenticity. The judgment relied upon by the appellant's counsel was found to be distinguishable and irrelevant to the case. The appeal was dismissed as being without merit, and the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: The case referenced by the appellant’s counsel: Altaf Hussain Vs. The State and 03 others (2005 P.Cr.LJ.758), was found to be distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. The court emphasized that without a clear finding of falsehood or malice in the original accusation, the complaint under section 7 of the Qazf Ordinance could not succeed.

Summary: Sentence reduced----Background: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Charsadda, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000 each under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for committing robbery and murder. The appellants were accused of killing a man and stealing his vehicle, which led to their arrest and trial. The confessions of the accused were recorded by a magistrate, and the prosecution's case was largely based on these confessions and other circumstantial evidence. -----Issues: 1- Whether the confessional statements recorded by the magistrate were admissible and could be used as the sole basis for the conviction. 2- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellants. 3- Whether the trial court properly assessed the credibility of the evidence, including the confessions and the recovery of the deceased’s identity card. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld. The court held that the confessional statements made by the appellants were admissible, as they were recorded separately and voluntarily before the magistrate. The court found no procedural defects in the recording of the confessions. The confessions were corroborated by other evidence, including the recovery of the deceased's identity card from the possession of one of the appellants. The court also noted that there was no evidence of enmity between the appellants and the complainant, which could suggest a false implication. The prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, and the trial court’s judgment did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences awarded by the trial court were maintained. The benefit of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), allowing the reduction of the sentence by the period of detention already undergone, was also upheld.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the Sessions Judge, Sibi, and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) along with a fine of Rs. 10,000, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment (S.I.) in case of default. The appellant was also granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The conviction was based on an FIR lodged on June 15, 2003, alleging that the complainant's vehicle was snatched, and the complainant was held captive. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses, including the complainant, affected the validity of the conviction. 2- Whether the identification of the appellant during the identification parade was reliable and legally sufficient. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Sibi, were set aside. The prosecution failed to produce the complainant, Noor Muhammad, who was the star witness and the eyewitness to the alleged crime. His absence severely undermined the prosecution's case. The FIR mentioned "some persons" without specifying the number or providing any description of the accused. The identification of the appellant was conducted in a questionable manner, with discrepancies in the number of persons present during the identification parade and no clear indication of how the appellant was linked to the crime. Several witnesses mentioned in the prosecution's case, including those who accompanied PW.1 Shah Bakhsh, were not produced, and there were unexplained delays in recording witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The prosecution's case was further weakened by the lack of recovery of the stolen vehicle and the fact that there was no physical evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment of the Sessions Judge was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The conviction arose from an FIR alleging that three armed individuals attacked the complainant, his son, and a companion, forcibly taking their motorcycle and mobile phones. The son was severely beaten and later died from his injuries. The appellant was identified in a subsequent identification parade. ----Issues: 1- Whether the identification parade and the absence of a description of the accused in the FIR were sufficient to establish the identity of the appellant as one of the perpetrators. 2- Whether the non-production of key witnesses, including the owner of the stolen motorcycle, affected the credibility of the prosecution's case. 3- Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s account of events. 4- Whether the trial court properly assessed the evidence before rendering its decision. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The court found significant flaws in the prosecution’s case, including the lack of a specific identification of the appellant in the FIR and inconsistencies in the identification parade, which was not conducted by a magistrate. Additionally, the supervising officer of the identification parade was not produced in court, and there was no corroborative evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The non-production of key witnesses and discrepancies between oral testimonies and medical evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading the court to overturn the trial court's judgment. ----Citations/Precedents: 2011 SCMR 563 PLD 2009 Peshawar 44 2010 SCMR 846

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged multiple rent-related laws, arguing that they were against the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The specific laws challenged included the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009; the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007; the Punjab/NWFP/Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979; and the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The petitioner claimed that these laws were un-Islamic because they allowed landlords to charge rent, which he argued was contrary to Islamic teachings. ----Issues: 1- Whether the rent-related laws mentioned in the petition are against the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. 2- Whether the petition meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Shariat Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petition was dismissed in limine due to both procedural flaws and lack of merit. The court noted that the petitioner failed to follow the procedural rule requiring a separate petition for each law challenged. The court also found that the verses from the Holy Quran cited by the petitioner did not support his claim that charging rent is un-Islamic. The court reiterated that the contract of rent/lease (Ijara) is well-established in Islamic jurisprudence, supported by the Holy Quran, Sunnah, and the consensus of Islamic scholars (Ijma'). The court referenced its previous rulings where similar laws were upheld as not being against Islamic injunctions. Additionally, the court dismissed the petitioner's argument that only those who physically labor are entitled to remuneration, citing Islamic principles that allow for ownership and income through inheritance, gifts, and other means without direct physical labor. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1992 FSC 286 (Ashfaq Ahmad vs. Government of Pakistan): The court previously examined similar rent-related laws and upheld their validity in Islamic law.

Summary: Background: In this case, the appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Judge Juvenile Court, Swabi, for robbery and murder. The prosecution's case was that on 16.07.2009, the complainant, a taxi driver, was robbed by two passengers. Upon fleeing, the accused, Bilal Ahmad, and his accomplice fired at individuals who chased them, resulting in three people being injured, one of whom, Muhammad Ali, later died. The accused was apprehended at the scene, and a firearm and the stolen money were recovered from him. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant could be held liable for the offenses under Sections 302-B, 392, and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). 2- Whether the firing by the appellant constituted qatl-e-amd (intentional murder) under Section 302-B PPC or qatl-bis-sabab (unintentional murder) under Section 321 PPC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the conviction and sentences of the appellant, dismissing the appeal. The court found that the evidence, including the eyewitness testimony of the complainant and injured witnesses, was reliable and credible. The appellant's act of firing at the pursuers, leading to the death of one individual, clearly indicated an intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Thus, the offense qualified as qatl-e-amd under Section 302-B PPC, not qatl-bis-sabab. The appellant was also rightly convicted for robbery under Sections 392 and 394 PPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 302-B, 392, 394, and 382-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged Section 172(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which prevents the accused from accessing police diaries, claiming that this violates the principles of Islamic justice. The petitioner argued that Islamic law mandates equality and fairness, and the inability to access police diaries before the submission of the challan in court is contrary to these principles. ----Issues: 1- Is Section 172(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which restricts access to police diaries by the accused, against the Injunctions of Islam? 2- Can the police diary be considered evidence, and does withholding it from the accused infringe upon Islamic principles of justice? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court reasoned that police diaries under Section 172(2) are not considered evidence but are merely procedural records for investigative purposes. These diaries cannot be used against the accused and are not treated as substantive evidence during trials. The court further clarified that these diaries can only be used to aid the court, not as a basis for judgment, and that they serve a lesser role than statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner’s arguments based on general Islamic principles of justice were deemed irrelevant to the specific legal nature of the police diaries. The court found no repugnancy to Islamic injunctions and dismissed the petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 172(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 145 and 161 of the Evidence Act, 1872

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Mst. Ughal Jan, her two sons, and her daughter. They were also convicted under Sections 458 and 379 PPC for house trespass and theft, respectively. The case was based on a report lodged on 22.11.2010 by complainant Painchi, brother of Mst. Ughal Jan, who initially reported the crime as committed by unknown individuals. The appellants were subsequently named after a supplementary statement on 24.11.2010, and the investigation led to their arrest. ----Issues: 1- Whether the circumstantial evidence and confessional statements were sufficient to convict the appellants for murder, trespass, and theft. 2- Whether the confessional statements made by the accused were voluntary, valid, and supported by corroborative evidence. 3- Whether the recovery of weapons and other items from the accused could be relied upon for their conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Circumstantial Evidence: The court noted that the prosecution's case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of items and the confessional statements made by two of the appellants (Amir and Waqas-ur-Rehman). However, it found that the circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of items like ropes, a piece of cloth, and a weapon, was not sufficiently connected to the crime and lacked material impact. The recovery of the weapon and bullets did not conclusively link the appellants to the crime. --Confessional Statements: The confessional statements made by Amir and Waqas were found to be problematic. The court observed that the confessions appeared coerced and were retracted by the appellants. The statements were also exculpatory in nature, attributing the main role in the crime to the absconding co-accused, Bakhtiar. The court found that the confessions were not voluntary, as they were made after prolonged custody and failed to meet the legal requirements under Section 364 Cr.P.C. The court also noted discrepancies in the investigation, such as the delay in sending crime empties for forensic analysis. --Doubtful Investigation: The court criticized the investigation, pointing out that no effort was made to collect crucial evidence, such as mobile phone data, fingerprints, or information on the ownership of the mobile phone found at the crime scene. The police also failed to properly investigate the ownership of items recovered from the scene. --Benefit of the Doubt: Due to the lack of credible evidence, contradictions in the confessional statements, and the flawed investigation, the court found the prosecution's case highly doubtful. The court reiterated the principle that in cases of doubt, the benefit must go to the accused. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all three appellants, setting aside the conviction and sentences passed by the trial court. The court ordered the release of the appellants unless they were required in any other cases. The case against the absconding co-accused Bakhtiar was to be decided separately based on future evidence. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 302(b), 458, and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) regarding the recording of confessional statements

Summary: Background: A murder case was filed in which the complainant’s son was found dead with a firearm injury on the morning of June 26, 2004. The complainant initially lodged an FIR against unknown individuals, alleging no personal enmity with anyone. Three days later, based on information provided by a witness, the complainant accused the respondents of committing the murder. During the investigation, several items, including a pistol and the deceased's CNIC, were recovered from the possession of the respondents. One of the respondents made a judicial confession before a magistrate, which was later retracted. ----Issues: 1- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented, including the confessional statement and recoveries, was sufficient to convict the respondents. 2- Whether the judicial confession made by one of the respondents was valid, given that it was retracted and recorded after three days of police custody. 3- Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was justified based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the acquittal of the respondents. The primary reasoning was that the circumstantial evidence was unreliable and insufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The occurrence was unseen, and no direct witness or strong corroborative evidence linked the respondents to the crime. The confessional statement was found to be involuntary, as it was recorded after prolonged police custody, with the accused having been given only ten minutes to consider his confession. The statement was also retracted, weakening its probative value. The recovery of the crime weapon and other items from the accused was deemed suspicious due to procedural delays and the lack of forensic support connecting the items conclusively to the crime. The court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, the respondents enjoy a double presumption of innocence, and the appellate court found no compelling reason to overturn the trial court’s judgment. ----Citations/Precedents: 2003 YLR 1709 2010 SCMR 1986 2008 SCMR 707 2007 SCMR 670 PLD 2010 Peshawar 1 2009 SCMR 4 1999 SCMR 172 2010 SCMR 1009 PLD 1995 SC 20

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panjgur, for the murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to death. The prosecution's case was that on 20.04.2009, the complainant, along with Abdul Basit and Waleed, were traveling when they were intercepted by the accused, including Himmat Ali. During the altercation, Basit was fatally shot by one of the co-accused, and the vehicle of the complainant was stolen. The trial court convicted Himmat Ali for the murder, and a death sentence was imposed. Himmat Ali filed an appeal against this conviction, and the case was brought to the Federal Shariat Court for review. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant, Himmat Ali, was properly identified as one of the assailants involved in the murder of Abdul Basit. 2- Whether the appellant acted in furtherance of a common intention with the co-accused to commit the murder. 3- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification and Lack of Evidence: The court noted that the appellant was not specifically named in the FIR by the complainant. The complainant only mentioned that one of the assailants was unknown but did not identify the appellant as that individual. Furthermore, there was no identification parade conducted to confirm the appellant’s identity as one of the attackers. Key witnesses who could have corroborated the identification of the appellant, including Waleed and Muhammad Sharif, were not produced by the prosecution. The court held that this lack of identification evidence seriously undermined the prosecution’s case. --Contradictions in Witness Statements: The court found significant contradictions between the statements of the witnesses, including discrepancies regarding the number of assailants and their actions during the crime. For example, the complainant mentioned three assailants in the FIR, while other witnesses spoke of five individuals. Additionally, the medical evidence did not align with the accounts provided by some of the witnesses. The court held that these contradictions weakened the prosecution's case. --Common Intention: The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant acted in furtherance of a common intention with the co-accused. The appellant was accused of beating the deceased with the butt of a Kalashnikov, but no such weapon was recovered from him, and no injuries consistent with such an attack were found on the deceased’s body. The court emphasized that the elements of common intention, such as a pre-planned motive and participation in the murder, were not sufficiently proved. --Insufficient Evidence: The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to support a conviction under Section 302(b) PPC. The discrepancies in witness statements, lack of identification evidence, and failure to establish a common intention led the court to conclude that the appellant’s involvement in the murder was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and death sentence of Himmat Ali under Section 302(b) PPC were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charges and ordered to be released immediately, provided he was not required in any other case. ----Citations/Precedents: 2012 SCMR 440 (Muhammad Akram Vs. The State) 2002 P.Cr.L.J 270 (Quetta) (Mir Hazar Vs. The State) 2005 SCMR 1906 (Mst. Dur Naz and another Vs. Yousaf and another) 2012 SCMR 419 (Muhammad Sharif Vs. The State)