Summary: Essentials of a valid gift and evidentiary value of a 30 years old documents. The petitioners claimed ownership based on an alleged oral gift from Muzaffar Hussain to their father, Bakht Rawan. However, the court found that the petitioners failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift and their evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. In contrast, the respondents produced a 30-year-old document regarding the partition of the property, which was supported by official records and witness testimony. The court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference, dismissing the petition and leaving the parties to bear their own costs

Summary: Constitutional Petition Held: A Judgment on Paternity, being both in personam and in rem, operates as re judicata on status and title, binding even those claiming under a party to the earlier suit.

Summary: Criminal Appeal Held: (i) The first question which falls for consideration is the objection of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the respondent before this court. A careful perusal of attested copy of the impugned order, indicates that the application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023, was presented to the Copying Branch on 05.07.2023 and its attested copies were delivered on 08.09.2023 and the appeal was filed on 30.09.2023, which is well within time. (ii) Legally, delay in filing an appeal may be condoned if the impugned judgment or order lacks jurisdiction, as courts can justify preventing the perpetuation of jurisdictionally flawed decisions. (iii) Objection that the appeal was time barred as attested copies were prepared on 02.08.2023 and the argument that date of preparation of attested copies of the order and not the date of its delivery, determines the limitation period, is misconceived, if such objection seen in light of the relevant law and rules. (v) It is imperative to mention that subsection (5) to section 12 of the Limitation was added through the Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1991, published in the Gazette of Pakistan on 06.07.1991 and bare reading of the above section would reveal that after its addition to section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the applicant has a right to be intimated of the day appointed for preparation of copies of the judgment and decree and its delivery. (vi) Needless to say, for regulating the preparation and supply of copies of records of civil and criminal courts by the copying agencies under the control of District and Sessions Judges, Additional district Judges, the Civil/Senior Civil Judges and judges of Small Cause Courts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Peshawar High Court, has made and notified its rules called as “the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil and Criminal Courts Preparation and Supply of Copies of Records Rules, 2021. Rules 24 and 25 of the Rules of 2021 make it crystal clear that the applicant shall be entitled to receive attested copies of the documents, judgments or orders on the day and date appointed for its delivery or for any reason, the copy asked for is not prepared, the Officer-in-charge, shall sent an intimation by post to the applicant fixing another day for its delivery. (vii) The preparation of attested copes after 28 days of the impugned judgment with no evidence of a scheduled date of preparation and delivery date or notice, the objection of the appeal being time barred, is deemed absurd and frivolous and is thus dismissed. (viii) Adverting to the merits, I find that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, was enacted with the object of protecting and promoting the rights and interests of consumers and ensuring expeditious redressal of consumer grievances. The purpose of the Act is to provide an efficacious remedy to consumers for losses arising from defective goods or deficient services, and to promote fair commercial practices. The complaint in hand was filed under Section 13 of the said Act. Thus, the core questions requiring determination are whether the respondent was competent to file the complaint under Section 13 of the ibid Act? Whether the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court or was of civil nature within the purview of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908? And whether the Judge, Consumer Court, acted within jurisdiction in entertaining and deciding the complaint? To address these questions, it is pertinent to refer to Clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 13, which permits filing of a complaint only by a consumer ‘to whom’ such goods are sold or delivered or such service is provided. (ix) For filing a complaint under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, the consumer is Dr. Amir Hussain of Ismail Unani Dawakhana, who hired TCS services for consideration, not the respondent Shahid Bin Azim, despite facilitating payment of shipment charges. Respondent’s contractual relationship, if any, was with the doctor, not with TCS, therefore, any cause of action arising from delayed delivery lay between TCS and the sender Dr. Amir Hussain. (x) I am conscious of the fact that Section 2(c)(ii) of the Act of 1997 includes within the definition of ‘consumer’ any person who is the beneficiary of a service. However, the right to lodge a complaint is governed not by the definition clause, but by Section 13(1)(a) of the Act of 1997, which confers such right only upon the consumer ‘to whom’ the goods or service are provided. In the instant matter, the respondent does not fall under this category and, therefore, lacks locus standi to initiate proceedings against the appellants under Section 13 of the Act of 1997. (xi) Moreover, a plain reading of the complaint reveals that the principal relief sought was recovery of Rs.21,05,000/- for mental torture, negligence, and endangerment to lives of the respondent’s sister and niece, (not party to the complaint). Such a claim is essentially one for damages and falls squarely within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Consumer Court, being a forum of limited jurisdiction, cannot assume jurisdiction over matters concerning tortuous liability or general civil rights unless they arise directly under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997. Examination of the complaint and the respondent’s statement reveals a civil dispute, involving adjudication of civil rights and obligations. Such matters are cognizable by Civil Courts alone, and not by the Consumer Court under Section 13 of the Act of 1997. (xii) For the foregoing reasons, I am clear in my mind that the Consumer Court fell into legal error in entertaining and allowing the complaint. The impugned judgment, having been passed without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2023 is set aside. However, the respondent shall be at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance before the competent forum in accordance with law. (Appeal allowed)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----S. 302(b)---- Conviction on charge of qatl-i-amd—Benefit of doubt—Delay in lodging FIR—Occurrence took place at 10:30 a.m. while FIR was recorded at 1:15 p.m.—No explanation offered for three-hour delay—Fard Biyan was stated to be recorded at 12:30 p.m., but constable who carried it to the police station was not examined—Inquest report by the Investigating Officer inconsistently recorded the time of occurrence as 10:45 a.m., casting further doubt—Post-mortem conducted after 9 hours and 30 minutes, and autopsy documents received by the doctor only at 6:00 p.m.—Delay held fatal to prosecution—Held, prosecution’s account appeared contrived and was not free from doubt—Accused acquitted. Cited Case: Minhaj Khan v. The State 2019 SCMR 326. (b) Criminal trial: ----Ocular evidence---Improvement and contradiction---Credibility of witnesses--- Eye-witnesses were father and brother of the deceased—Contradicted their initial police statements in material aspects—Initially claimed three firearm injuries; at trial, stated only two shots were fired—Also inconsistent regarding who was present at the Dera during occurrence—Both failed to explain contradiction in number of gunshots and positioning of the deceased—Court held that material contradictions and dishonest improvements rendered witnesses unreliable. Cited Case: Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344. (c) Criminal trial: ----Medical evidence---Ocular account---Distance of fire--- Injuries showed blackening, burning, and tattooing around entry wounds, indicative of firing from very close range (6–12 inches)—Ocular witnesses alleged a firing distance of 2 to 4 karams (11 to 22 feet)—Contradiction between medical and ocular evidence held significant and detrimental to prosecution—Court held that when ocular version is inconsistent with medical findings, prosecution’s case is undermined. Cited Cases: Amin Ali v. The State 2011 SCMR 323; Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2014 SCMR 749; Abdul Jabbar v. The State 2019 SCMR 129. (d) Criminal trial: ----Motive---Failure to prove specific motive---Effect--- Prosecution alleged motive that deceased refused to tie appellant’s calf, but evidence showed complainant party were tenants of accused’s land and had previously tethered his animals without issue—Eyewitnesses also contradicted initial version of motive—Held, once motive is asserted, prosecution must prove it convincingly—Failure to establish motive raised further doubt. Cited Case: Sarfraz v. The State 2023 SCMR 670. (e) Criminal trial: ----Recovery of weapon---Crime empties---Forensic report---Reliability--- 9 mm pistol allegedly recovered from accused and matched to crime empties—However, inquest report did not mention recovery of any crime empty from scene—Both empties and pistol were sent together for forensic analysis after arrest of accused—Court held such recovery as doubtful and apparently planted to support prosecution—Forensic report held devoid of evidentiary value. Cited Case: Mansab Ali v. The State 2024 PCrLJ 617. (f) Administration of justice: ----Presumption of innocence---Benefit of doubt---Islamic principle--- Court reiterated that benefit of doubt must go to accused if prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Emphasized that in Islamic jurisprudence, it is preferable to err by acquitting a guilty person than to convict an innocent—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appeal allowed and reference for confirmation of death sentence answered in negative. Cited Case: Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048.

Summary: Case Summary

Summary: (a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 ----Major penalty—Disciplinary proceedings—Faulty investigation—Absence of credible evidence—Petitioner was dismissed from service following allegations of faulty investigation, later modified to a reduction in pay—Tribunal found no direct or credible evidence linking petitioner to charges—Regular inquiry not held—Supreme Court held that once charges were found unsubstantiated and principles of natural justice violated, the imposition of any penalty, however minor, was unlawful—Tribunal erred in reducing penalty instead of full exoneration. References: Aamir Akbar v. Additional Superintendent of Police 2025 SCMR 632; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. IGP 2023 SCMR 1135. (b) Constitutional Law ----Arts. 4, 14 & 25—Due process—Natural justice—Fair trial—Supreme Court held that all disciplinary actions by public authorities must comply with constitutional protections of equality, dignity, and lawful treatment—Tribunal's decision to partially uphold penalty despite absence of inquiry and evidence constituted breach of these rights—Complete exoneration ordered. (c) Judicial Review ----Proportionality principle—Scope and application—Disciplinary decisions—Tribunal applied proportionality doctrine to reduce penalty despite finding no proven misconduct—Supreme Court held that such application was erroneous—Proportionality applies only where some legitimate state objective exists—Absent proven misconduct, any punishment is disproportionate by default—Doctrine cannot be used to "balance" injustice. References: Divisional Superintendent Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803; Government of KPK v. Nargis Jamal 2022 SCMR 2114; Postmaster General Sindh v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154. (d) Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (Punjab) ----S. 5—Powers of Service Tribunal—Scope of judicial discretion—Tribunal must exercise discretion judiciously and within legal bounds—Once charges are found to be unsubstantiated, Tribunal cannot impose or maintain any penalty—Failure to exonerate amounts to misapplication of law and miscarriage of justice. References: Deputy Postmaster General v. Habib Ahmed 2021 PLC (C.S.) 531; Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Khalid Hussain Hamdani 2013 SCMR 817. (e) Remedies—Reinstatement with benefits ----Where petitioner is wrongfully dismissed and subsequently exonerated, reinstatement with all consequential benefits is the only lawful remedy—Tribunal's partial relief without legal basis was set aside—Supreme Court ordered full restoration of service from original dismissal date. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Impugned order set aside—Petitioner exonerated and reinstated with all consequential benefits.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Criminal trial––Benefit of doubt––Delay in lodging FIR––Post-mortem conducted prior to registration––Doubtful presence of eyewitnesses––Acquittal–– Prosecution case was found to be doubtful due to unexplained delay in lodging FIR, despite the police having knowledge of the occurrence shortly after the incident. Post-mortem was conducted before the FIR was formally registered, and the delay was held to have been used for consultation and fabrication. The Supreme Court observed that such delay, coupled with glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, seriously undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s version. The presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the crime scene was disbelieved, rendering the evidence unreliable. Cited cases: Mehmood Ahmed v. The State 1995 SCMR 127; Shaukat Hussain v. The State 2024 SCMR 929; Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490. (b) Criminal trial––Contradictions in ocular testimony––Role of co-accused contradicted––Evidence held untrustworthy––Acquittal–– Prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements regarding the role of Muhammad Akbar (co-convict). While the complainant (PW-1) attributed joint firing to both accused, another witness (PW-2) did not implicate Muhammad Akbar in the firing. This contradiction went to the root of the prosecution’s case and was not reconciled. Such material contradictions in fundamental aspects of the case rendered the prosecution evidence doubtful, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Cited cases: Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230. (c) Criminal law––Motive––Vague and unproved––Failure to establish motive weakens prosecution case–– Prosecution alleged threats and prior incidents involving the appellant, but failed to specify the date, time, or location of those threats or events. No prior complaint, FIR, or documentary proof was submitted. The Court held that motive was ambiguous and unsubstantiated, which further weakened the prosecution case. Cited cases: Rahib Ali v. The State 2018 SCMR 418. (d) Criminal trial––Recovery of weapon––Crime empties and weapon sent together––Forensic report loses probative value–– Recovery of the weapon and matching crime empties could not be relied upon as both were sent together to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court reiterated that simultaneous dispatch of empties and weapon after the arrest of the accused renders the report unreliable and indicative of manipulation. Cited cases: Sarfraz v. The State 2023 SCMR 670; Abdul Wahid v. The State 2023 SCMR 1278. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)––S. 544-A––Compensation––Reversal of conviction results in setting aside of sentence and compensation–– As the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt, conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was set aside. Consequently, sentence and compensation awarded under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C., also stood annulled. (f) Criminal law––Benefit of doubt extended to non-appealing co-convict––Principle of parity––Power of Supreme Court to grant relief suo motu–– Even though co-convict Muhammad Akbar had not filed an appeal, the Supreme Court extended him the benefit of doubt in parity with the main appellant, holding that it would be unjust to deny him relief solely on technical grounds. His case was on better footing due to absence of motive and lack of any recovery or direct role in the firing. The same benefit was also extended to absconding co-accused Atta Hussain Buledi, as his role was identical to a co-accused who had already been acquitted. Cited cases: Imtiaz alias Taj v. The State 2018 SCMR 344; Shabbir Ahmed v. The State 2011 SCMR 1142; Amin Ali v. The State 2011 SCMR 323; Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1972 SCMR 194.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376(iii) ----Rape of minor girl aged 10 years—Conviction based on confidence-inspiring testimony of victim—Victim, a 10-year-old school student, unequivocally identified the accused, a school sweeper, as the perpetrator of rape—Her statement was recorded after assessment of her competency under Art. 3 read with Art. 17 of QSO, 1984—Court found her narrative natural, consistent, and trustworthy—Held, sole testimony of victim in rape cases, especially of child sexual assault, is sufficient for conviction if credible—Victim’s version supported by medical evidence indicating recent vaginal trauma—Prosecution successfully proved case beyond doubt. (b) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, S. 18(1) & (2) ----Trial and confirmation of sentence—Appeal filed under S.18(1) of the Act, and death sentence reference submitted under S.18(2)—Held, trial court correctly applied law; sentence awarded was in line with statutory mandate under S. 376(iii), PPC for rape of a child under 12. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173, 342, 382-B ----Investigative and trial procedure—Appellant arrested on same day as FIR—DNA sampling done—Though DNA did not yield positive result, medical and ocular evidence was deemed sufficient—Appellant neither appeared under S. 340(2) nor produced defence evidence—Confession before police not relied upon—Trial Court awarded death and fine, with compensation under S. 17 of the Anti-Rape Act—Appellant was granted benefit under S. 382-B for time already served. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 3, 17 ----Competency of child witness—Victim assessed for intelligence and ability to comprehend—Trial court rightly concluded she was competent to testify—Held, child’s testimony in sexual assault cases is admissible if it meets standards of coherence and credibility—No indication of tutoring found. (e) Delay in Lodging FIR—Effect in Rape Cases ----Two-day delay in reporting rape—Courts held delay immaterial due to social stigma, fear, and vulnerability, especially for victims from modest backgrounds—Cited Mehboob Ahmad v. The State (1999 SCMR 1102), Zahid v. The State (2020 SCMR 590), and Zahid v. The State (2022 SCMR 50)—Held, in rape cases involving child victims, delay cannot override substantive evidence where circumstances justify the delay. (f) Forensic and Medical Evidence—DNA and Potency Testing ----No semen detected in DNA analysis—Held, negative DNA not fatal where medical and ocular evidence clearly establish offence—Medical report showed abrasions on breasts and fresh vaginal injuries consistent with rape—Delay of two days in MLC explained absence of semen—Appellant found potent—Reliance placed on Abdul Ghani v. The State (2022 SCMR 544). (g) Rape Trials—Absence of Eyewitnesses—Effect ----Held, absence of eyewitness not material in rape offences committed in secrecy—Victim’s account can be sufficient—Court referred to Shakeel v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 47), Habib Ullah v. The State (2011 SCMR 1665) -------- Disposition: Capital Sentence Reference No.08-ARA-2022 is answered in affirmative and death sentence awarded to appellant is confirmed.