Summary: Acquittal granted ---- Sher Zaman was convicted for the murder of Gul Rahman and attempted murder of Noor Rehman under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the Additional Session Judge-I, Peshawar. The incident allegedly occurred on January 26, 2021, when Sher Zaman, purportedly with intent to kill, shot Gul Rahman, resulting in his immediate death, and attempted to shoot Noor Rehman who escaped unharmed. The motive suggested was a previous altercation between the deceased and the appellant. Sher Zaman was sentenced to life imprisonment and financial compensation to the deceased's legal heirs. ----Issues 1. Whether the incident occurred as described by the prosecution, at the stated time and manner. 2. Whether the medical evidence corroborates the prosecution's account. 3. Whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Peshawar High Court overturned the conviction and acquitted Sher Zaman. The court found substantial discrepancies between the prosecution's narrative and the evidence presented. Key points included: Inconsistencies between the crime scene description and where the deceased's body was found. The complainant's questionable presence at the scene. Discrepancies between the medical evidence and the ocular account of the incident. The prosecution's failure to produce critical witnesses or convincingly establish the motive. The unexplained timely surrender of the appellant to the police post-incident, which suggested a lack of guilt. ----Citations/Precedents Sardar Bibi and another Vs Munir Ahmad and others (2017 SCMR 344): Highlighted the importance of timely and consistent FIR lodging to avoid inference of afterthought or manipulation. Ibrar Hussain and another Vs. The State (2020 SCMR 1850): Discussed the reliability of solitary witnesses under questionable circumstances. Najaf Ali Shah Vs The State (2021 SCMR 736): Emphasized the importance of consistency between ocular testimony and medical evidence. Muhammad Ilyas Vs Ishfaq alias Munshi and others (2022 YLR 1620): Stressed the need for the prosecution to convincingly establish the motive when it is purported as the sole reason for the crime.

Summary: Sentence reduced --- The petitioner, previously sentenced to death in two separate murder cases, appealed for his life imprisonment sentences to be served concurrently. Both death sentences had been converted to life imprisonment upon appeal. The petitioner invoked Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which allows for concurrent sentencing under specific circumstances. ----Issues: 1. Whether the sentences of life imprisonment awarded in two different criminal trials should run concurrently as per the provisions of Section 397 Cr.P.C. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that Section 397 Cr.P.C. grants it the discretion to allow sentences to run concurrently, especially in cases presenting unique circumstances that merit such consideration. The Court reasoned that denying the benefit of concurrent sentences would effectively negate the mitigation from death to life imprisonment granted earlier, undermining the objectives of justice and reformation. Outcome: The petition was granted, and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently, reflecting a compassionate application of the law that considers the convict's long-term welfare and the intent behind reducing his original death penalties. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Provides the legal framework for the concurrent running of sentences. 2018 SCMR 418 "Rahib Ali v. The State" - Referenced to emphasize the court's discretion under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and its application in similar contexts.

Summary: Sentence reduced ---Issues: Whether the trial and appellate courts were justified in convicting the appellants under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) along with section 302(b)/34 PPC. Whether the death sentences awarded to the appellants were appropriate considering the motive of personal vendetta. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Section 7(a) ATA: The Supreme Court concluded that the conviction and sentence under section 7(a) ATA could not be sustained as the motive was personal vendetta rather than creating terror or insecurity. Section 302(b)/34 PPC: The Court maintained the conviction under section 302(b)/34 PPC but modified the sentences from death to life imprisonment, considering the mitigating circumstance of personal vendetta. Testimony of the police officers/officials is as good as testimony of any other witness. ---Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Shabbir v. The State (2020 SCMR 1206) Farooq Ahmed v. The State (2020 SCMR 78) Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61) Hamid Mukhtar Shah v. Muhammad Azam (2005 SCMR 427) Salah-ud-din v. The State (2010 SCMR 1962) Qari Muhammad Ishaq Ghazi v. The State (2019 SCMR 1646) Zulfiqar alias Zulfa v. The State (2021 SCMR 531) Liaquat Ali v. The State (2022 SCMR 1097) Ali Taj v. The State (2023 SCMR 900) Nazeer Ahmed v. The State (2023 SCMR 1299) Amjad Ali v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 661) Ajun Shah v. The State (PLD 1967 SC 185) Muhammad Bilal v. The State (2019 SCMR 1362)

Summary: Background: In the Islamabad High Court, the case of Muhammad Zafran Qureshi vs. Capital Development Authority (CDA) involves a dispute over compensation and the development of village property. The petitioner, Muhammad Zafran Qureshi, sought judicial intervention regarding compensation for land and built-up property, and the development of village property into model villages. ----Issues: Whether the compensation for the land and built-up property has been fully paid to the affected parties. Whether the property of the villages should be developed and converted into model villages, a decision pending with the Federal Government. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court acknowledged the report from the CDA stating that compensation for the land and built-up property had been paid. However, the decision regarding the development of the villages' property into model villages was still pending with the Federal Government. The Director (RP) of the CDA, Mr. Ejaz-Ul-Hassan, appeared in court and provided this information, noting the stance of the previous owners regarding the development of the property. The petitioner or their representative was not present to challenge this position. The Court decided to re-list the case for further proceedings on July 6, 2023, to allow time for the petitioner to be present and potentially provide further information or contest the CDA’s position. ----Quote: Acquisition effectees Case seeking direction for allotment of agro farm Mouza Sumbal Korak

Summary: ---Quote: Acquisition effectees Case seeking direction for allotment of agro farm Mouza Sumbal Korak

Summary: Background: M/S Ibrahim Fibers Limited and other associated plaintiffs filed a suit (C.O.S No. 01 of 2009) against the Federation of Pakistan and other defendants. The specific details of the grievances or claims made by the plaintiffs are not provided in the order sheet. ----Issues: The exact legal issues in dispute are not detailed in the provided order sheet. The case involves the plaintiffs (Ibrahim Fibers Limited and others) against the defendants (Federation of Pakistan and others), likely pertaining to a matter requiring adjudication by the Islamabad High Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: It was reported that the learned principal counsel for the Privatization Commission was out of the country. A request for adjournment was made on behalf of the absent principal counsel. The court, presided over by the Chief Justice, granted the adjournment request. The case was re-listed for a future hearing on 22.06.2023.

Summary: Background: The Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO) filed a writ petition against M/s National Construction Company Limited and other respondents. The specific grievances or issues at the heart of the petition are not detailed in the provided order sheet. ----Issues: The immediate issue in the proceedings is the repeated failure of the petitioner's counsel to appear and argue the case, despite multiple warnings from the court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court reviewed the order sheet, noting multiple warnings given to the petitioner's counsel about the necessity to argue the case. A specific order dated 23.01.2023 indicated that if the counsel did not argue the case, it would be decided based on the available record. The court granted an absolute last opportunity for the petitioner's counsel to appear and argue the case. The case was adjourned and re-listed for 03.05.2023.

Summary: Background: Pak Telecom Mobile Limited (“Ufone”) filed a writ petition against the Federation of Pakistan and other respondents. ----Issues: The key issue in this proceeding is the conclusion of arguments by the petitioner’s counsel and the scheduling of further arguments from the respondents. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court recorded that the arguments on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel had concluded. The case was scheduled to come up for arguments from the respondents on 10.04.2023.

Summary: Background: M/s Tameer-e-Millat Foundation filed a civil suit against M/s FedEx Pakistan and other defendants. The specifics of the dispute are not detailed in the order sheet, but the case pertains to a civil matter between these parties. ----Issues: The primary issue in this proceeding concerns the jurisdiction of the court handling the case. According to a specific notification, the case should have been transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court noted Notification No. 9491/Genl/IHC dated 10.07.2020, which indicated that the instant civil suit should be transferred to a court with the appropriate jurisdiction. The court directed the office to take necessary actions to transfer the case to the court of competent jurisdiction.

Summary: Background: Allama Iqbal Open University filed a writ petition against the Ministry of Zakat & Ushar. The specific details of the petition's subject matter are not provided in the order sheet. ----Issues: The main issue in this proceeding is the request by the Assistant Attorney General representing the Ministry of Poverty Alleviation (formerly Ministry of Zakat & Ushar) for additional time to file fresh para-wise comments. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Dr. Muhammad Ali and Mr. Irfan Ahmed Awan appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Poverty Alleviation. The Assistant Attorney General requested time to file fresh para-wise comments on behalf of the Ministry of Poverty Alleviation. The court granted the request and ordered that a copy of the comments be provided to the petitioner's counsel in advance. The case was scheduled for re-listing on 22-03-2023.