Summary: (a) It is a settled principle that matters arising out of contractual obligations cannot ordinarily be agitated or challenged in Constitutional Law jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. (b) It is a consistently affirmed principle of Constitutional Law adjudication that disputed questions of fact, which require the recording of evidence, examination of witnesses, cross-examination, or detailed factual inquiry, cannot be entertained or adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The writ court, in exercising its powers under Article 199, is not equipped to conduct a full-fledged fact-finding trial; its role is confined to examining questions of law, jurisdictional defects, or violations of fundamental or statutory rights. Where the controversy involves factual disputes—such as competing versions of events, contested documents, allegations requiring evidentiary proof, or matters necessitating technical assessment—the appropriate forum is the Civil Law court or any other competent tribunal empowered to undertake such factual determination. (c) The arbitration clause, in its scope and language, embodies the clear intention of the contracting parties to exclude the intervention of ordinary Civil Law or Constitutional Law forums in matters arising purely from the contract and to resolve such disputes through the internal dispute-resolution mechanism provided therein. Where parties have voluntarily entered into a contract containing a self-contained dispute-resolution clause, they are bound by its terms and cannot bypass the agreed procedure by directly invoking the Constitutional Law jurisdiction of this Court. (d) Perusal of the contents of the writ petitions reveals that the petitioners have not disclosed about the filing of earlier suits which amounts to concealment of facts from the Court. Relief under section 199 of the Constitution, being discretionary, therefore, the Court considering the conduct of the petitioners, holds that they have not come to the Court with clean hands and do not deserve the relief sought in the writ petitions.

Summary: I. In a case involving multiple accused persons, where one accused is alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while the co-accused inflicted a single stab wound, the factum of catching hold by an accused and his vicarious liability requires recording of prosecution evidence. II. In cases falling within the ambit of further inquiry u/s 497(2) Cr.P.C., the grant of bail is a right, not a concession. III.Every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the benefit of doubt may be extended even at the bail stage if warranted by the facts of the case. IV. Where one accused has already been granted bail by a competent Court then another co-accused, having been assigned almost identical role, cannot be denied the same concession in view of the principle of consistency and the mandate of Article 4 read with Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

Summary: Post Arrest Bail in FIR No. 816/2025 dated 20.09.2025 U/s 9(1)6C, 9(2)5 CNSA P.S. Lohi Bhair, Islamabad

Summary: (1) Common object of the assembly must be one of the five objects mentioned in Section 141 PPC (2) According to Section 149 PPC every member of an unlawful assembly at the time of committing of the offence is guilty of that offence (3) Offence under Section 354-A PPC is a heinous crime which falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner claimed that he purchased the property from his father and got it directly transferred to the respondent/plaintiff as discharge of the dower obligation within one month after the marriage ceremony, which was disbelieved by the Appellate Court below on the ground that in fact it was a sale between father-in- law and daughter-in-law and the admission of the respondent/plaintiff that the sale mutation is pursuant to dower obligation was a slip of tongue. Held that admission of the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioner had transferred the dower property through sale mutation is a slip of tongue is untenable inasmuch as cross- examination is a process through which truth is elicited and contradictions are tested, therefore, admission made therein cannot be termed as an inadvertent or mistaken utterance otherwise the purpose of cross-examination will become meaningless. 157Crl. Appeal- Against Conviction- Others 1101-25 SYED BASHARAT HUSSAIN SHAH VS STATE ETC Mr. Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan 06- 11- 2025 2025 LHC 6527

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 03-hours and 45-minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---In this case the occurrence took place on 25.02.2018 at 09:45 PM which had been reported by complainant on 26.02.2018 at 01:30 AM, after a delay of 03 hours and 45 minutes---No explanation, much less plausible, had been furnished by the complainant for the said delay---Unexplained delay in lodging FIR created a doubt in the prosecution's case and its benefit had to be extended and construed in favour of the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others PLD 2019 SC 64; Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State 2012 SCMR 428; Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan 2010 SCMR 105 and Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 11-hours in conducting post-mortem examination---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 26.03.2018 by Medical Officer at 08:45 AM i.e. after 11 hours of occurrence, for which, no explanation, much less plausible, had been advanced by the Medical Officer or by the complainant or by any other prosecution's witnesses---Delay in conducting the postmortem examination suggested that the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence, therefore, the said time was consumed in procuring the attendance of procured eye-witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa and others 2017 SCMR 54 and Waqas Ahmad v. The State 2025 SCMR 1087 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Complainant, being the real brother of the deceased, was patently an interested witness, whose testimony, in the absence of independent corroboration, was inherently suspect and must be scrutinized with extreme caution---Testimony of eye-witness was even more precarious as he was a resident of village, while the occurrence took place in another village---Admission of said eye-witness in cross-examination that "about one hour was consumed while coming to his village from the village of occurrence" established that he was not a resident of the locality and his presence at the precise time and place of the incident was highly improbable and unnatural---In the absence of any explanation for his fortuitous presence, he could safely be termed a "chance witness," whose testimony was inherently unreliable---Investigation further compounded that doubt, as the Investigating Officer, despite the pivotal nature of this issue, failed to take into possession the Call Data Record (CDR) of eye-witness, which could have objectively verified or falsified his claim of being present at the scene---Said lapse was a significant investigative flaw benefit whereof must be extended to the appellant---Furthermore, the conduct of the investigation, wherein co-accused were declared innocent without any challenge from the complainant, casted a long shadow of doubt on the overall veracity of the prosecution's version---Cumulatively, the interested testimony of complainant, the chance nature of the testimony of eye-witness, and the dubious investigation rendered the ocular account too unsafe to act upon for upholding a conviction of such gravity---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on the same set of evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---In the present case, co-accused persons of the appellant were acquitted by the Trial Court who were assigned specific roles of inflicting fire shots on the person of deceased---Acquittal of co-accused, with specific roles, on the same set of evidence had created serious doubt about the veracity and sanctity of same witnesses against the present appellant and under the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in all), the appellants could not be convicted on such evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat son of Hadait Ullah PLD 2019 SC 527 and Pervaiz Khan and another v. The State 2022 SCMR 393 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions between ocular account and medical evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Oral and medical evidence contradicted each other---Witnesses of ocular account claimed that deceased sustained five firearm injuries but according to Medical Officer, the deceased suffered four injuries---Injury cited in the FIR on the belly of the deceased was not found during post mortem examination, whereas, injury ascribed on the knee of left leg was found as an exit wound---Such disparity called into question the validity of the evidence used against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Abrar v. The State 2025 SCMR 1145 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime weapons---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Occurrence took place on 25.02.2018 and the accused/appellant succeeded to flee away from the place of occurrence along with crime weapon---Then, according to recovery memo, on 10.05.2018 the accused/appellant got recovered the crime weapon pistol 30-bore, but this recovery remained totally inconsequential because of negative Forensic Science Agency Report---Besides, when the ocular account had already been disbelieved, such recovery would not be sufficient for recording conviction of an accused on capital charge, because this type of corroborative evidence was always taken into consideration along with direct evidence---Recovery of crime weapon with matching report of Forensic Science Agency was corroborative piece of evidence, which by itself was not sufficient to record conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Noor Muhammad v. The State 2010 SCMR 97 rel. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance, which creats doubt in the prosecution case, then the same would be sufficient to acquit the accused. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. Muhammad Usman Gondal, Abu Bakar Zia and Rana Muhammad Abrar for Appellant. Shabbir Ahmad, DPG for the State. Muhammad Ijaz Khan and Faisal Mehmood Sivia for the Complainant with father of the Complainant. Date of hearing: 5th November, 2025. Sardar Akbar Ali, J .--- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.62560-J of 2019, filed by Umer Farooq alias Muhammad Farooq (appellant cited as Muhammad Faoorq in the impugned judgment) against his conviction and sentence and Crl. Rev. No.62559 of 2019 filed by Tahir Abbas, complainant for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant, as both these matters have arisen out of the same impugned judgment dated 28.09.2019, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin.