Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The statement of sole eye-witness, i.e, son of the appellant and findings recorded by the trial court,there was no previous motive for the commission of offence and the incident in issue had erupted all of sudden without any pre-mediation, whatsoever.The medical evidence shows that the deceased had received one shot of pistol on her body, i.e, a fire-arm entry wound on inner angle of left eye size ? cm and 2 cm, charring marks were present, which shows injury had been caused to deceasedvery closely and may be a result of over powering of pistol. Eye witness had stated in his examination-in-chief that his mother, i.e, deceased was not allowing the appellant his father from going outside the house, while he was holding .30 bore pistol in hand. These facts of the case squarely attract Exception-4 contained in the erstwhile provision of Section.300 PPC, as it has already been held by the Apex Court in the cases, Piran Ditta V. The State (1993 SCMR 1934) and Ali Muhammad V. Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 1996 SC 274) and the principle rendered in the said cases is followed by the Apex Court in Cases Azmatullah V. The State (2014 SCMR 1178) and Zeeshan Shahni V. The State (PLD 2017 SC 165).

Summary: ----Ss.7, 14(2)(C), 17-A & Sched.---Suit for maintenance---Quantum of maintenanceallowance for minor daughter---Scope---Family Court decreed maintenance allowance tominor striking off defence of father in wake of his failure to provide interim maintenance

Summary: ----S. 7 & Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R. 9---Certificate of effectivenessof divorce, issuance of---Suit for dissolution of marriage and recovery of maintenance---FamilyCourt passed ex-parte judgment---Husband moved application for s

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal againstacquittal---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that unknown persons murdered the son ofcomplainant by cutting his neck through sharp edged weapon---Accused/appellant andrespondents were implicated in the case after the lapse of eleven months---Validity---Admittedly,the unnatural death of deceased with sharp edged weapon was not a matter of dispute---Recordshowed that prosecution had introduced two eye-witnesses of the incident after an unexplaineddelay of eleven months, so inference could safely been drawn that the ocular evidence wasmanaged and said witnesses were planted after due deliberation and consultation---Conduct ofsaid witnesses was against the human nature because they came forward with the claim that theywere close relatives of the deceased but at the time of incident, neither they resisted the unnaturaldeath of deceased at the hands of culprits, nor intimated the matter either to the police orcomplainant timely---Said witnesses even did not shift the dead body of the deceased to thehospital---Record transpired that it was a blind murder with no evidence---Alleged eye-witnesseswere planted later on, so reliance on their testimony without strong, independent andunimpeachable corroboration was not safe---Circumstances established that prosecution failed toprove the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore appeal against acquittal was dismissedaccordingly.Rahat Ali v. The State 2010 SCMR 584 rel.(b) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Scope---Prosecution was duty bound to prove its case against the accusedbeyond shadow of any reasonable doubt---Benefit of doubt, if any, would be extended in favourof accused.Adeel and another v. The State 2016 YLR 2212 and Fazal Maula v. The State throughAdditional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another 2016 MLD 42 rel.

Summary: The appellant who failed to challenge the sale before a competent forum in the prescribed manner cannot be allowed to challenge the sale in a collateral proceedings arising out of a writ of mandamus against the Income Tax Authorities and Military Estate Officer for the issuance of sale certificate and effecting mutation in his name----The appellant, a tax defaulter, consented to the attachment and auction of his property but later contested the process, alleging irregularities and lack of proper notice. The respondent successfully bid for the property, but faced obstacles in obtaining the sale certificate due to disputes between tax authorities. The Court examined the appellant's failure to challenge the auction through appropriate channels under the Income Tax Rules. Despite having multiple opportunities, the appellant did not avail himself of the remedies provided in the Rules. The Court emphasized the comprehensive mechanism provided by the Income Tax Rules for addressing issues related to tax recovery and property auctions. The Court cited the Income Tax Act and Rules, highlighting the detailed procedures for tax recovery, attachment, and property auctions. It emphasized that these rules constitute a self-contained code for addressing disputes related to tax recovery and property auctions.The Court referred to precedents where challenges to property auctions were required to be made within specific timelines and through designated channels outlined in the relevant statutes and rules. It underscored the principle that challenges to auction processes must be pursued through the mechanisms provided in the law, and collateral proceedings, such as those initiated by the appellant, are not justified when alternative remedies are available under the statute. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the need to adhere to the procedural framework established by the Income Tax Rules and the inappropriateness of challenging auction processes through collateral proceedings.

Summary: Detailed judgement in Urdu.