Summary: Posting, transfer and adjustment of Civil Law servants are ordinarily incidents of Service Law and fall within the administrative domain of the competent authority. It is a settled principle of law that a Civil Law servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place or to hold a specific assignment unless such right flows from an express statutory provision. The competent authorities are vested with discretion to regulate postings and transfers in accordance with Service Law exigencies and public interest, and judicial interference in such matters is warranted only where the impugned action is shown to be without lawful authority, in violation of statutory rules, or tainted with mala fide of a high order supported by credible material.

Summary: (a)The mere relationship of a witness with the complainant party, in and of itself, is not a valid or sufficient ground to discard or discredit his testimony. It is a settled principle of law that evidence cannot be rejected solely on the basis of relationship, unless it is affirmatively demonstrated that the witness is actuated by malice, bias, or an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused. In the absence of such proof, the testimony of a related witness, if otherwise consistent, credible, and confidence-inspiring, is to be accorded due weight and consideration in accordance with law. (b)A plea of alibi constitutes a distinct and special defence in Criminal Law jurisprudence, whereby the accused asserts his presence at a place other than the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. It is a well-settled principle of law that the onus to substantiate such a plea squarely rests upon the party who invokes it. The burden is required to be discharged through cogent, convincing, and reliable evidence so as to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. Mere bald assertions or uncorroborated statements are insufficient to establish an alibi; rather, the accused must affirmatively prove, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, that his presence at the place of occurrence was impossible.

Summary: Sentence upheld --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Kidnapping, rape and murder of minor girl---Circumstantial evidence---Last seen evidence---Sufficiency---Minor deceased aged about 5/6 years was abducted in broad daylight from a bazaar---F.I.R. was initially lodged against an unknown culprit, but accused was later nominated through supplementary statement on information supplied by independent witnesses who had seen the deceased in his company on motorcycle shortly after abduction and later saw accused in perplexed condition loading a bag on his motorcycle---Another independent witness saw a bag fall from accused’s motorcycle in evening hours, and on opening the same found dead body of minor girl inside---Supreme Court held that last seen evidence, when read with subsequent conduct of accused, recovery of dead body, medical evidence and forensic material, constituted a complete and coherent chain of circumstances, consistent only with guilt of accused and incompatible with any hypothesis of innocence---Conviction was rightly maintained. (b) First Information Report---Delay in lodging F.I.R.---Effect---Occurrence took place at about 3:00 p.m. whereas F.I.R. was lodged after about six hours---Informant explained that immediately after abduction he remained busy in tracing abducted child, informed police, and made mosque announcements in nearby localities---Held, delay stood plausibly and satisfactorily explained and, in peculiar circumstances of case, did not detract from prosecution version---Omission to nominate accused in first instance rather reflected bona fides of informant, for had there been prior enmity or ulterior motive, accused could conveniently have been named in F.I.R. itself. (c) Criminal trial---Last seen theory---Scope and evidentiary value---Independent witness saw deceased shortly after abduction in company of accused while accused was taking her inside his house on motorcycle---Same witness later noticed accused near his house in perplexed condition loading a bag on his motorcycle---Another witness subsequently saw bag fall from accused’s motorcycle and dead body of deceased was recovered therefrom---Held, last seen evidence is an important link in chain of circumstantial evidence and may warrant expectation from accused to explain how and when he parted company with deceased---Though conviction cannot rest solely on last seen theory, it may safely be relied upon where prosecution case as a whole furnishes strong corroboration and circumstances preceding and following such sighting point unerringly towards guilt of accused. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)----Art. 122---Fact especially within knowledge of accused---Burden of explanation---Where prosecution by cogent evidence established that minor victim was last seen alive in company of accused, it became incumbent upon accused to explain what transpired thereafter---Held, Art.122 does not shift legal burden of proof from prosecution, but where accused fails to explain facts within his special knowledge, such failure may constitute an additional link in chain of circumstantial evidence---In present case, accused failed to furnish any plausible or satisfactory explanation, which further strengthened prosecution case. (e) Medical evidence---Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of minor girl---Proof---Medical officer noticed multiple ante-mortem injuries on the body of deceased and found clear signs of recent sexual violence---Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to smothering---Held, medical evidence fully corroborated prosecution case regarding sexual assault upon minor deceased followed by her murder. (f) Forensic science---DNA evidence---Evidentiary value---Punjab Forensic Science Agency report showed that DNA profile obtained from biological samples secured from body of deceased matched DNA profile of accused---Held, DNA evidence, due to its scientific accuracy and conclusiveness, is regarded as gold standard for establishing identity of accused and constitutes one of the strongest corroborative pieces of evidence, particularly in sexual offence cases---Such forensic evidence provided highly incriminating corroboration against accused. Cited Cases: Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain. Salman Akram Raja case 2013 SCMR 203. Atif Zareef and others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 550. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 342 & 340(2)---Statement of accused---Effect of bare denial---Accused neither appeared as witness under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence---He merely denied prosecution allegations in statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Held, bare denial, being not on oath and not tested through cross-examination, does not by itself rebut prosecution evidence or discharge burden arising once prosecution establishes a prima facie case through complete circumstantial chain. (h) Circumstantial evidence---Principles for conviction in capital cases---Held, conviction, even involving capital punishment, may safely be based on circumstantial evidence provided each circumstance is independently proved and all proved circumstances form an unbroken chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence---In present case, chain comprising abduction, last seen evidence, accused’s suspicious conduct, throwing of bag containing dead body, medical evidence and DNA evidence was complete beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Cited Cases: Khurshid v. The State PLD 1996 SC 305. Munawar Hussain v. Imran Waseem 2013 SCMR 374. (i) Sentencing---Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 364-A & 376---Death sentence---Kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of minor girl of 5/6 years---Principles---Accused abducted minor girl in daylight from open bazaar, subjected her to brutal sexual violence, murdered her, placed dead body in sack and disposed of it---Held, such acts were brutal and gruesome in extreme and called for no leniency---Sentence must serve purposes of retribution, deterrence and, where possible, reformation, but in case of such heinous offences death sentence was justified to act as deterrent and to protect peace, tranquillity and harmony of society---Convictions and sentences awarded by Trial Court and maintained by High Court were upheld. Disposition: Leave to appeal was refused and jail petition was dismissed; convictions and sentences of death under Ss. 302(b), 364-A and 376, P.P.C., as maintained by the High Court, were upheld. I can also make it even more “website-safe” by replacing “rape and murder” in the headings with “sexual assault and murder” throughout.

Summary: While granting or refusing interim relief, the Court is required to consider not only the balance of convenience or inconvenience but also the peculiar nature of the agreement(s) and attending circumstances of the case, including substantial loss likely to be caused to the parties with the passage of time, so as to ensure that the snake-bitten does not die before the antidote reaches.

Summary: Where stipulation of prompt or deferred dower without any reference to specific time of payment is mentioned in the Nikahnama, prompt or deferred dower, as the case may be, shall be payable on demand in view of statutory rule contained in Section 10 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Conversely, where the expression deferred dower is listed in the Nikahnama with specific stipulation for its payment on a specific date or upon death or divorce, the same will be paid accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The allotment in favour of petitioner was questioned by the respondents being the outcome of fraud, which cannot be determined in summary proceedings. The questions canvassed in the application were rested on intricacy of facts for the resolution of which, office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, even otherwise, was not a proper forum as such questions clearly fall within the jurisdictional domain of ordinary civil Court, being the Court of ultimate jurisdiction.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Orders passed by departmental authority during process of inquiry, at interim stage, could not be challenged in Constitutional Law jurisdiction of this Court unless same suffers from jurisdiction defects.