Summary: i. A child who has experienced sexual abuse carries an additional burden. Trauma alters recall, it suppresses speech and it induces silence, hesitation, and confusion. If courts insist on adult standards of articulation and composure, they will not obtain better truth, they will obtain silence. ii. The understanding that competency of a child witness must be assessed through functional capacity, rather than procedural familiarity is not unique to this jurisdiction. It represents a broader evolution in Criminal Law jurisprudence, shaped by judicial experience, legislative reform, and modern understanding of child psychology. iii. The Court cautioned trial judges against intimidating formality and emphasized that proceedings involving child victims must be conducted in a manner that is humane, non- threatening, and sensitive to emotional vulnerability. The Court recognized that the atmosphere of the courtroom itself can operate as an invisible barrier to truthful testimony if not consciously moderated. iv. The record reveals that the minor prosecutrix was not subjected to any meaningful assessment of her cognitive capacity in terms of law. She was not tested on her ability to comprehend simple factual inquiries. She was not asked whether she could distinguish between truth and falsehood in age-appropriate language. She was not invited to narrate any neutral event from daily life, so as to gauge her communicative ability. v. What further aggravates the situation is the complete absence of any attempt to create a child-sensitive environment. vi. The object is not to test academic intelligence, but to satisfy judicial conscience that the child is capable of understanding the questions put to her and of giving rational and truthful answers.

Summary: 1. Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony: The sole produced eyewitness, the complainant (PW-8), was the brother of the deceased. His testimony contained material and irreconcilable contradictions regarding how the body was transported to the hospital and the presence of other witnesses. His conduct was deemed unnatural. 2. Non-production of Material Witness: Ali Maizer, another eyewitness named in the FIR, was not produced by the prosecution (on the grounds of being abroad) without plausible justification. The court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, assuming his testimony would not have supported the prosecution. 3. Dishonest Improvements: The witnesses introduced new facts (like the accused demolishing the speed breaker and the mother's intervention) that were absent from the initial report (murasila). These were seen as attempts to strengthen a weak case. 4. Deficient Judicial Confession: The appellant's confession before a Judicial Magistrate was found unreliable. The court noted procedural lapses, including insufficient time given for reflection and the presence of court staff during recording, raising doubts about its voluntariness. The confession was also inconsistent with the prosecution's initial story. 5. Inconclusive Forensic Evidence: The 30 bore pistol allegedly recovered on the appellant's pointation did not match the crime empty sent for forensic analysis (FSL report was negative). Therefore, the recovery was deemed inconsequential. 6. Unproven Motive: The alleged motive (a dispute over a speed breaker) was found to be illogical and not established through credible evidence. 7. Benefit of Doubt: The cumulative effect of the above flaws created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version. The court emphasized that even a single circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Habeas corpus---Alleged illegal detention---Production of detenue before Court---Petitioner sought writ of habeas corpus alleging that officials of Islamabad Police, in association with Punjab Police, conducted raid at petitioner’s office on 31.12.2025 at about 2100 hours and forcibly took away alleged detenue Malik Qamar Abbas, whose whereabouts thereafter remained unknown---Petitioner asserted that no FIR, detention order or remand order had been disclosed and detenue was being kept in illegal confinement---During proceedings, detenue surfaced and appeared before High Court---Purpose of habeas corpus petition stood accomplished. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 9, 10 & 199---Illegal confinement---Subsequent showing of arrest---Effect---Petitioner alleged that respondents mala fidely showed arrest of detenue on 05.01.2026 after filing of constitutional petition, though he had allegedly been in illegal custody earlier---Record showed that detenue was arrested in Crime No.01/2026 and was produced before Magistrate, whereafter he was released on furnishing surety bond of Rs.50,000---High Court disposed of petition as detenue was present and no further habeas corpus relief survived. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Investigation---Statement of accused/detenue in defence---Where detenue had surfaced and was released on bail in Crime No.01/2026, High Court observed that for relief relating to his version/defence, petitioner could approach Investigating Officer for recording statement in the said crime. (d) Constitutional petition---- ----Habeas corpus---Petition becoming infructuous---When alleged detenue is produced/present before Court and is no longer missing or in undisclosed custody, primary object of habeas corpus petition stands achieved---Petition may be disposed of without further adjudication on merits, leaving petitioner to avail proper remedy before investigating agency or competent forum. (e) Police raid---- ----Request for CCTV/video footage and documents---Effect after production of detenue---Petitioner sought preservation and production of CCTV/video footage/photographs relating to raid, as well as copies of any FIR, detention order or remand order---Since detenue had surfaced, was present in Court, and had been released on bail in Crime No.01/2026, High Court disposed of petition while allowing petitioner to approach I.O. for recording statement in defence. Disposition: W.P. No.23 of 2026 was disposed of as alleged detenue had surfaced and was present before Court; Court observed that petitioner may approach Investigating Officer of Crime No.01/2026 for recording his statement in defence.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Arts. 10A, 40, 184(3) & 175E(4)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1898—S. 4(1)(l)—Mutual Legal Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act, 2020—Ss. 2(1)(c), 4 & 7—Suo motu proceedings—Murder of journalist abroad—Independent and transparent investigation—Judicial supervision of investigation—Limits of constitutional jurisdiction—The Federal Constitutional Court, while dealing with the suo motu case regarding the murder of journalist Arshad Sharif in Kenya, held that although the State is under an obligation to ensure a fair, independent and transparent investigation, the constitutional courts cannot continuously supervise, monitor, or control the conduct and manner of investigation merely by keeping proceedings pending. The Court observed that Article 10A guarantees not only a fair trial but also an investigation free from undue pressure and interference, and such protection begins from the inception of the investigative process. However, the statutory sphere of investigation belongs to the police and investigating agencies, and judicial assumption of ongoing supervisory control would be prejudicial to fairness, inconsistent with settled jurisprudence, and beyond the proper constitutional role of the Court. Since no objection had been raised to the findings of the fact-finding process or the Special Joint Investigation Team, and the real concern related only to the pace of progress in a matter involving a foreign sovereign state, no justification existed for continued judicial monitoring. Criminal law—Investigation—Functions of judiciary and police—Non-overlapping spheres—Relying on Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim (PLD 2009 SC 102), the Court reiterated that the functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary but not overlapping, and that the conduct and manner of investigation normally cannot be scrutinized in constitutional jurisdiction. It further relied on Malik Shoukat Ali Dogar v. Ghulam Qasim Khakwani (PLD 1994 SC 281) for the principle that continued court control over investigation is prejudicial to the accused and detrimental to fairness of procedure. Referring also to S. 4(1)(l), Cr.P.C., the Court held that investigation means proceedings for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or other authorized person, and does not contemplate continuous supervision by courts. The Court noted that judicial intervention in investigation is confined to exceptional situations, such as habeas corpus matters, mala fide investigation, or cases of jurisdictional excess, as recognized in Fahad Ahmed Gulzar v. ASI/IO Saeed Mahroof (2025 PCrLJ 1140). Accordingly, the request of the deceased’s family to keep the suo motu proceedings pending for ongoing oversight of the investigation was declined. Constitutional law—Foreign affairs—Article 40—International forums—Judicial restraint—The Court further held that it could not issue directions requiring the Federal Government to raise the matter at international forums, because such a course would intrude into the domains of foreign policy and diplomatic engagement, which constitutionally belong to the Federal Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Article 40, though reflective of constitutional aspirations to foster goodwill and friendly relations among nations, did not justify judicial management of foreign relations. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had earlier accepted the position that mutual legal assistance and diplomatic channels should first be allowed to run their course, with recourse to international forums to be considered only if the need subsequently arose. The matter was therefore left to the good sense and discretion of the Federal Government. Mutual Legal Assistance—Cross-border criminal investigation—Pakistan and Kenya—Statutory framework in both states—The Court observed that both Pakistan and Kenya have enacted legal regimes governing mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In Pakistan, the Mutual Legal Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act, 2020 establishes the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, as the central authority empowered to make requests for assistance in criminal investigations and proceedings; while in Kenya, the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2011 vests corresponding authority in the Office of the Attorney General. A request for mutual legal assistance had been made by Pakistan to Kenya on 22.02.2023, accepted by Kenya, and the agreement was signed on 10.12.2024. In addition, the record showed constitution of the SJIT, diplomatic contacts by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, communication between the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the President of Kenya, examination of the Kenyan case file, engagement with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of Kenya, contact with the pathologist who conducted the post-mortem, and issuance of black warrants against the alleged perpetrators. In these circumstances, the Court held that the matter was actively proceeding through lawful investigative and diplomatic channels in both sovereign states and did not warrant judicial interference. Case references—Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim (PLD 2009 SC 102); Malik Shoukat Ali Dogar v. Ghulam Qasim Khakwani (PLD 1994 SC 281); Fahad Ahmed Gulzar v. ASI/IO Saeed Mahroof (2025 PCrLJ 1140). The Court also referred to the earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the same proceedings dated 13.02.2023 and 17.03.2023, particularly regarding the impermissibility of judicial supervision over investigation and the propriety of allowing mutual legal assistance and diplomatic processes to continue. Suo motu action disposed of—Pending applications disposed of—The Federal Constitutional Court held that, in light of the steps already taken by the Federal Government and the legal frameworks operating in Pakistan and Kenya, no further judicial intervention was required. The suo motu proceedings were accordingly disposed of, with observation that if the legal heirs of Arshad Sharif had any specific grievance, they could approach the court of competent jurisdiction.

Summary: Following questions of law have been put before this Court for opinion: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Multan Bench, Multan ("the Tribunal") was justified in upholding the order of the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) ["CIR(A)"] wherein the learned CIR(A) has reduced the turnover of the taxpayer for charging of advance tax under Section 236H of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("the Ordinance") upto 33% of the total turnover without quoting any provision of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in mechanically validating the order of the learned CIR(A) who relied on an earlier judgment of CIR(A) for restricting application of Section 236H of the Ordinance only to the extent of 33% of the total turnover?thereby relying on another case which was decided in violation of the existing legal provisions and for which no rationale or evidence existed? Held that the tax law requires determination of liability to be based on actual verifiable transaction, and not arbitrary percentages, more so, when the law does not prescribe such percentage/formula, therefore, the CIR(A) as also the Tribunal erred in applying the said percentage. At the same time, we find force in argument of learned counsel for the respondent-taxpayer inasmuch as the Assessing Officer also failed to discharge its duties to make the assessment based on facts and record presented by the respondent-taxpayer. It was obligatory on the Assessing Officer to assess the record and see whether the portion of sales by the respondent-taxpayer went directly to the end users/consumers and should not be subjected to the withholding tax under Section 236H of the Ordinance for the purpose of advance tax. Further held that if the sales are made directly to the end users/consumers, the same do not fall under the ambit of sales to the retailers. Section 236H of Ordinance primarily deals with sales to the retailers and in cases where the distributor claims direct sale to the general consumer against gross sales/receipts, the Assessing Officer shall examine the nature of transaction for the purpose of advance tax, as the case may be. 47Crl. Misc.- Post- arrest Bail 10529- B-25 AMIR VS STATE ETC Mr. Justice Ch. Sultan Mahmood 13-01- 2026 2026 LHC 913

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 184(3)---Art. 175E(4)---Art. 10A---Art. 90---Art. 40---Suo motu proceedings---Transfer to Federal Constitutional Court---Scope of original jurisdiction Murder of Pakistani journalist abroad---Suo motu taken by Supreme Court under Art.184(3)---Matter transferred after Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025---Held, proceedings concerned ensuring fair, independent and transparent investigation; right to fair trial under Art.10A extends to investigation stage and requires collection of evidence holistically, including material supporting defence as well as prosecution---However, court’s role is limited and cannot extend to continuous monitoring or supervision of investigation, particularly where no allegation of impropriety in investigation is pressed and the concern relates mainly to pace owing to coordination with another sovereign State. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ----S. 4(1)(l)---Definition of “investigation”---Collection of evidence by police officer/authorized person (other than Magistrate)---Judicial restraint Court supervision of investigation---Limits---Held, investigation is a statutory inquisition for collection of evidence by police; continuous court control/supervision not contemplated and generally impermissible---Conduct and manner of investigation not to be scrutinized under constitutional jurisdiction as it amounts to interference and substitution of police function; courts and police perform complementary, not overlapping, roles---Exceptional circumstances for interference confined to limited categories (e.g., habeas corpus, mala fide investigation, lack of jurisdiction/excess of authority) and grievances may be pursued before competent forums. Cited Cases: • Ajmeel Khan v. Abdur Rahim, PLD 2009 SC 102 • Malik Shoukat Ali Dogar v. Ghulam Qasim Khakwani, PLD 1994 SC 281 • Fahad Ahmed Gulzar v. ASI/IO Saeed Mahroof, 2025 PCrLJ 1140 (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 10A---Fair trial and due process---Investigation stage---Independence and transparency Fair trial---Commencement from investigation---Held, Art.10A protection begins from inception of investigation, requiring independent investigator and enabling environment free from undue pressure---Nevertheless, court’s continuous oversight may prejudice accused and undermine fairness of procedure; judicial monitoring of investigation therefore disfavoured. (d) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 90---Executive authority of Federation---State’s obligation to protect citizens’ rights---Government measures abroad Federal Government’s role---Diplomatic and investigative steps---Held, Federal Government, acting through executive authority, undertook measures including constitution of Special Joint Investigation Team (SJIT), liaison with foreign authorities, engagement with prosecutorial offices in Kenya and facilitation through Ministry of Foreign Affairs---Court noted no objection by any party to SJIT or fact-finding process/method, and no allegation of impropriety; primary concern related to pace due to need for coordination with another sovereign State. (e) Mutual Legal Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act, 2020 ----Ss. 2(1)(c), 4, 7---Central authority (Secretary, Ministry of Interior)---Request to foreign state---Admissible evidence and cooperation Mutual legal assistance framework in Pakistan---Held, 2020 Act provides statutory mechanism for MLA in criminal matters through designated central authority empowered to make requests to foreign authorities for investigation/proceedings---Request made to Kenya and agreement executed; once MLA process invoked, central authority exercises powers relating to request under the Act, and investigation proceeds within the statutory framework, reducing scope for judicial interference. (f) Kenya Mutual Legal Assistance Act, 2011 ----Ss. 5, 6---Kenyan central authority (Office of Attorney General)---Handling foreign requests Bilateral cooperation---Held, Kenya maintains corresponding statutory framework empowering its central authority to act on MLA requests---Where both States possess legal frameworks and are coordinating under MLA, courts ought not to interfere when law and investigation are taking their due course and sovereign processes are engaged. (g) Constitutional law and foreign policy ----Art. 40---Principles of policy---International forums---Separation of functions Direction to pursue international fora---Held, judicial orders directing State to raise matter in international forums would encroach upon foreign policy domain and interfere with ongoing MLA-based investigative process; handling of foreign relations is for Federal Government/MoFA to determine what is appropriate in international context; issue left to executive’s judgment, with note that recourse could be considered if need arises. (h) Criminal law ----Pakistan Penal Code, 1860---Ss. 302/34---FIR registered in Pakistan for murder abroad---Inter-state coordination Registration of FIR and domestic steps---FIR registered under sections 302/34 PPC at P.S. Ramna, Islamabad as produced before Supreme Court---SJIT constituted to investigate and coordinate with Kenyan counterparts; court noted ongoing diplomatic and legal steps including warrants and MLA cooperation, without making findings on merits of evidence so as not to prejudice any future trial. Disposition: Suo moto proceedings disposed of; all pending applications disposed of; Court declined to keep proceedings pending for continuous supervision/monitoring of investigation and declined to issue directions concerning international fora, noting MLA process and diplomatic coordination underway; legal heirs left at liberty to approach courts/forums of competent jurisdiction in case of specific grievance (Suo Moto Case No. 3 of 2022, heard 14.01.2026).

Summary: If place of occurrence alleged by the prosecution has not been proved during trial of the case, then it is fatal for the case of prosecution.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The legal question put for opinion of this Court is whether ICA is maintainable if part of the original order is not amenable to appeal, revision or review under the applicable law. Held that the ICA is not maintainable, even if the appellant confines the challenge to the part of the original order, against which the right of appeal, revision, or review is not explicitly available under the applicable law.