Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The complainant, a 20-year-old woman, was abducted and gang-raped by the accused while traveling from Kotli Sattian to Rawalpindi. She immediately reported the incident to the police, naming the perpetrators. Two more accused were added to the FIR through a supplementary statement. Three of the accused were tried and convicted under Section 376(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), receiving the death penalty and compensation orders from the trial court. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. One accused appealed his conviction and another challenged the reduction of sentence in the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Was the complainant's testimony reliable and sufficient for conviction? -----2- Is the defense of questioning the complainant's character admissible in court? -----3- Can DNA evidence and medical reports independently corroborate the complainant's testimony? -----4- Was the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment appropriate? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Testimony of the Complainant: The complainant's testimony was detailed, consistent, and trustworthy. It was corroborated by her immediate reporting of the incident and supported by medical evidence and DNA analysis. The Court emphasized that the complainant, a well-educated woman, had no motive to falsely accuse the perpetrators of such a heinous act. --Defense of Character Questioning: The Court deemed any attempt to question the complainant’s character irrelevant and unconstitutional, emphasizing that a victim's sexual history has no bearing on consent or credibility in a rape case. References to the "two-finger test" or similar methods were criticized as unscientific and violative of the victim’s dignity under Articles 4 and 14 of the Constitution. --Corroboration by DNA Evidence: DNA evidence was considered the gold standard for identification, confirming the involvement of two accused in the crime. Medical reports corroborated recent sexual activity and injuries, supporting the complainant's account. --Acquittal of One Accused: One appellant, was acquitted due to insufficient evidence, including his exclusion from the DNA report and lack of identification by the complainant at the time of the FIR. --Reduction of Sentence: The life imprisonment sentence for the remaining convicted appellants was upheld as proportionate, given the severity of the crime and the evidence presented. --Directive on Proclaimed Offenders: The Court directed the Inspector General of Punjab Police to ensure the arrest of the remaining two proclaimed offenders, emphasizing that the delay in justice undermines the rule of law. Two appellants’ convictions were upheld, and their life sentences were maintained. One appellant was acquitted on benefit of the doubt. A directive was issued to pursue the arrest of proclaimed offenders. -----Citations/Precedents: Legal and Constitutional Protections: Article 4 and Article 14 of the Constitution: Protection of human dignity and reputation. Omission of Article 151(4) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order: Prohibits questioning the victim's general immoral character. Scientific and Legal Standards: DNA evidence and modern forensic science are the gold standard for corroborating rape allegations. WHO’s "Eliminating Virginity Testing" Statement: Declares "two-finger tests" unscientific and irrelevant. Relevant Cases: Mukhtar Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan: Declared Article 151(4) of QSO repugnant to Islamic injunctions. National Commission on the Status of Women Reports: Highlighted the patriarchal biases in sexual assault cases.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O XVII, R. 3---Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc.---Party availing numerous opportunities including the last and final opportunity---Duty of Court--- Scope--- Petitioner/plaintiff despite availing opportunities failed to produce evidence---Trial Court dismissed the suit---Appeal of petitioner was also dismissed by Appellate court---Held that Court had the duty to regulate the proceedings of the case with the object to decide the lis expeditiously---If the court reached the conclusion that a party to lis was deliberately avoiding to lead evidence and maliciously prolonging the matter on different unreasonable pretext, then it was well within the jurisdiction of court under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C., to strike down the right of producing evidence of such a defaulting party---When Court had passed an order granting the last opportunity, it had not only passed a judicial order but also made a firm promise to the parties for not granting any further adjournment---Unflinching expectations of the litigant were attached with Court that it shall enforce its order in its true letter and spirit---Civil revision was dismissed. Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi and others v. Agha Syed Liaqat Ali and others 2014 SCMR 637; Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-ud-Din and others 2015 SCMR 1401; Moon Enterprises CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager, Rawalpindi and another 2020 SCMR 300; Rai Muhammad Riaz (decd) through L.Rs. and others v. Ejaz Ahmed and others PLD 2021 SC 761 and Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another 2014 SCMR 1469 rel. ------- Background: The petitioner filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of a document, and consequential relief, claiming ownership of a property left by a deceased family member. The petitioner failed to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities granted by the trial court. The trial court invoked its jurisdiction under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., and dismissed the suit for lack of evidence. The petitioner appealed, but the appellate court also dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a civil revision challenging the orders and decrees of the lower courts. ---- Issues: --- 1) Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., for the petitioner’s failure to produce evidence. ---- 2) Whether the appellate court was correct in upholding the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit. ---- 3) Whether there was any jurisdictional defect or illegality in the orders of the lower courts. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that: The petitioner failed to produce evidence despite being granted numerous opportunities, including a final opportunity with the warning that failure to do so would result in the closure of the right to present evidence. Under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., the trial court had the authority to dismiss the suit due to the petitioner’s continuous failure to comply with court orders. The court’s duty is to regulate proceedings efficiently and prevent unnecessary delays. The appellate court's decision to uphold the trial court’s dismissal was appropriate as no illegality or material irregularity in the orders was found. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts did not warrant interference. There was no jurisdictional defect or violation of legal procedures by the lower courts. The civil revision was dismissed as being devoid of merit. ----- Citations/Precedents: Syed Tahir Hussain Mehmoodi and others v. Agha Syed Liaqat Ali and others (2014 SCMR 637) Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-ud-Din and others (2015 SCMR 1401) Moon Enterprises CNG Station, Rawalpindi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (2020 SCMR 300) Rai Muhammad Riaz (decd) through L.Rs. and others v. Ejaz Ahmed and others (PLD 2021 SC 761) Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469)

Summary: Intra court Appeal in WP 3962-20 (Service/Absorption)

Summary: [Constitutionality of two fingers test ("TFT") in rape cases] The case involved a rape incident of a woman named Saadia Rani while traveling to Rawalpindi. The appellants were convicted of the crime under Section 376(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death.During the trial, the court examined various pieces of evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, medical evidence, and DNA test reports. The court found the testimony of the complainant to be credible and corroborated by medical and DNA evidence. Thus, it upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence for Atif Zareef and Sher Baz Khan.However, the court found that the case against the appellant Nafees Ahmad was distinguishable, and there was a reasonable doubt about his involvement. As a result, the court acquitted him and ordered his immediate release if not required in any other case.The court also addressed the practice of conducting the "two-finger test" or "virginity test" on rape survivors. It stated that modern forensic science rejects such tests as they have no scientific basis and violate the survivor's rights. The court emphasized the importance of dignity and respect for the survivors and prohibited any questioning or evidence related to their sexual history or character in rape cases.Additionally, the court directed the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to take necessary actions to bring the proclaimed offenders in the case to justice.The Criminal Petition No. 667/2020 seeking suspension of sentences became infructuous due to the appeal decision, and the petition was dismissed.

Summary: [Constitutionality of two fingers test ("TFT") in rape cases] The case involved a rape incident of a woman named Saadia Rani while traveling to Rawalpindi. The appellants were convicted of the crime under Section 376(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death.During the trial, the court examined various pieces of evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, medical evidence, and DNA test reports. The court found the testimony of the complainant to be credible and corroborated by medical and DNA evidence. Thus, it upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence for Atif Zareef and Sher Baz Khan.However, the court found that the case against the appellant Nafees Ahmad was distinguishable, and there was a reasonable doubt about his involvement. As a result, the court acquitted him and ordered his immediate release if not required in any other case.The court also addressed the practice of conducting the "two-finger test" or "virginity test" on rape survivors. It stated that modern forensic science rejects such tests as they have no scientific basis and violate the survivor's rights. The court emphasized the importance of dignity and respect for the survivors and prohibited any questioning or evidence related to their sexual history or character in rape cases.Additionally, the court directed the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to take necessary actions to bring the proclaimed offenders in the case to justice.The Criminal Petition No. 667/2020 seeking suspension of sentences became infructuous due to the appeal decision, and the petition was dismissed.

Summary: [Constitutionality of two fingers test ("TFT") in rape cases] The case involved a rape incident of a woman named Saadia Rani while traveling to Rawalpindi. The appellants were convicted of the crime under Section 376(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death.During the trial, the court examined various pieces of evidence, including the testimony of the complainant, medical evidence, and DNA test reports. The court found the testimony of the complainant to be credible and corroborated by medical and DNA evidence. Thus, it upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence for Atif Zareef and Sher Baz Khan.However, the court found that the case against the appellant Nafees Ahmad was distinguishable, and there was a reasonable doubt about his involvement. As a result, the court acquitted him and ordered his immediate release if not required in any other case.The court also addressed the practice of conducting the "two-finger test" or "virginity test" on rape survivors. It stated that modern forensic science rejects such tests as they have no scientific basis and violate the survivor's rights. The court emphasized the importance of dignity and respect for the survivors and prohibited any questioning or evidence related to their sexual history or character in rape cases.Additionally, the court directed the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to take necessary actions to bring the proclaimed offenders in the case to justice.The Criminal Petition No. 667/2020 seeking suspension of sentences became infructuous due to the appeal decision, and the petition was dismissed.

Summary: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)-------Ss.3 & 4---Suit for recovery of money---Maintainability---Action in "rem" and"personam"---Scope---Beneficial ownership---Proof---Plaintiff sought recovery of liability ofoutstanding price of fuel/bunker services provided by it to defendant company for ships---When the suit was filed defendants had already sold the ships which were in the process ofbreaking---Validity---Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court under S. 3(2)(l) of AdmiraltyJurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, could be invoked to determine any cause /claim in respect of necessaries supplied to a ship including fuel / bunker service--- Accordingto S. 4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, if a claim under S.3(2)(l) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, arising in connection witha ship, claim could give rise to a maritime lien on the ship only when Admiralty jurisdictionof High Court could be invoked by an action in rem against the ship, if at the time when theaction was brought, that ship was beneficially owned in respect of majority shares therein bythat person who was liable to the claim in an action in personam---Suit filed by plaintiff wasnot maintainable under Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court---Suit was dismissed, incircumstances.Messrs International Bunkering Middle East DMCC v. M. T. Tridonawati 2012 CLD1611; Atlantic Steamer's Supply Company v. m. v. Titisee and others PLD 1993 SC 88 andHong Leong Finance Limited v. Asian Queen PLD 1991 SC 1021 rel.Yousuf Kazi v. s.s Phoenix PLD 1978 Kar. 1052; Sajid Plastic Factory v. MSCBahamas PLD 2020 Sindh 568; Khadija Edible Oil Refinery (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M.T "Galaxy"2011 CLD 709; Ahmed Investment Ltd. v. M.V. "Sunrise IV" PLD 1980 Kar. 229; YukongLtd. South Korean Company. v. M.T. Eastern Navigator PLD 2000 SC 57; DiamondEngineering Mechanical, Electrical and Marine Engineering Contractors v. M.V LUCTOR-IPLD 1978 Kar. 837 and MSC Textiles (Private) Limited v. Asian Pollux 2007 CLD 1465distinguished.