Summary: Background: The petitioners, both serving as Medical Officers at Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF), Wah Cantt, challenged the POF's housing policy, which restricts the allotment of residential plots to only one plot per working couple, even if both spouses are employed by POF. The petitioners argued that this policy is against the injunctions of Islam, contending that both husband and wife have independent rights and should be entitled to separate plots. ----Issues: 1- Whether the policy restricting the allotment of only one residential plot to a working couple, even if both are employed, is against the injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the POF's policy violates the principles of justice by depriving one spouse of the right to a residential plot. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Islamic Injunctions and Policy Review: The court held that the policy does not violate Islamic injunctions. The rationale behind the policy is to ensure that as many employees as possible are accommodated, given the limited number of available plots. The court emphasized that Islamic principles of justice and fairness support the idea of distributing resources in a manner that benefits the larger community, rather than granting multiple plots to a single family. --Application of Justice: The court found that the policy is justified based on the limited availability of plots and the need to prioritize employees who do not own any residential plot. Allocating two plots to one family, when many other employees have not been allotted even one plot, would lead to an unjust distribution of resources. The petition was dismissed as being misconceived. The court upheld the POF policy, emphasizing that it aligns with the principles of justice and equity as prescribed by Islamic teachings. The petitioners’ demand for two separate plots was deemed inconsistent with the broader objectives of fairness and welfare. ----Citations/Precedents: Holy Quran Verses: Quran 6:132: "To all are degrees (or ranks), according to their deeds: For thy Lord is not unmindful of anything that they do." Quran 16:97: "Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has Faith, verily, to him will We give a new Life, a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions." Hadith References: Sahih Muslim: Emphasized the spirit of sharing resources with those in need rather than hoarding surplus. Previous Judgment Reference: Shariat Petition No. 8/1 of 2004 and linked petitions: Related to house rent allowance but distinguished as not applicable to the allotment of residential plots, which are not a guaranteed right but a discretionary benefit. This case emphasizes the principle that in an Islamic welfare state, policies must ensure equitable distribution of limited resources, prioritizing those in greater need to uphold justice and fairness.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: This consolidated judgment addresses multiple appeals arising from a common judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Charsadda, on January 26, 2017. The appellants were convicted for their involvement in a murder and robbery case where Safdar Khan was killed, and his vehicle was stolen. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and other penalties. The appeals challenge the convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the confessions obtained from the appellants were voluntary, true, and legally admissible. 2- Whether the circumstantial evidence and other corroborative evidence were sufficient to uphold the convictions of the appellants. 3- Whether the trial court's judgment suffers from misapplication of law or misreading of evidence, warranting interference by the appellate court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Confessional Statements: The court found that the confessional statements of the appellants were not recorded in strict compliance with legal requirements. The magistrate failed to ensure that the appellants were fully aware of their rights and the consequences of their confessions. Additionally, the confessions were inconsistent, particularly regarding the number of shots fired and the sequence of events, which raised doubts about their reliability. The court ruled that these confessions could not be relied upon to convict the appellants. --Circumstantial Evidence: The court held that the prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of stolen property and the pointation of crime scenes by the appellants. However, this evidence was found to be insufficient and unreliable. For example, the recovery of bullet casings did not match the number of shots described in the confessions, and the pointation of the crime scene was considered inadmissible as it was already public knowledge. The forensic evidence was also questioned due to the improper handling and delay in sending the evidence for analysis. --Corroborative Evidence and Abscondence: The court noted that the other evidence, such as the alleged abscondence of the appellants and the call data records, failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The abscondence was not proven in accordance with legal requirements, and the call data records did not conclusively link the appellants to the crime. The appeals were accepted, and the convictions and sentences of all the appellants were set aside. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellants were acquitted. Those in custody were ordered to be released immediately unless required in other cases, and those on bail had their bonds discharged. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345): The court reaffirmed the principle that if there is a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, they are entitled to be acquitted. Azeem Khan vs. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274): The court emphasized the strict requirements for the admissibility of confessions, particularly the need for voluntary and truthful statements recorded in compliance with legal safeguards. Hashim Qasim vs. The State (2017 SCMR 986): The court highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence when dealing with retracted confessions and the legal implications of procedural lapses in criminal investigations.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: This case involves the appeal of Ayaz, Ikhtiar Khan, and Niaz, who were convicted of murder and robbery. They were found guilty of killing Bilal during a robbery in which a motorcycle and Rs.700,000 were stolen. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentences, while the complainant also sought an enhancement of the sentences through a revision petition. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient and reliable to uphold the convictions of the appellants. 2- Whether the identification parade and the recovery of stolen property and weapons were conducted in compliance with legal standards. 3- Whether the delay in sending forensic evidence to the lab affected the credibility of the forensic reports. 4- Whether the recovery of the stolen money and weapons was sufficiently proven and could be used as corroborative evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Ocular Testimony: The court found that the testimony of the sole eyewitness, P.W.10 Muhammad Asghar Khan alias Qari, was unreliable. He failed to provide a description of the assailants at the time of the incident and did not attribute specific roles to each appellant. The court noted that without a detailed description and proper identification, the eyewitness testimony could not be solely relied upon for conviction. --Identification Parade: The court highlighted several procedural flaws in the identification parade, including the failure to follow the Peshawar High Court Rules and the lack of detailed descriptions by the eyewitness. Additionally, the identification parade was conducted improperly, and there was evidence suggesting that the appellants may have been shown to the witnesses before the parade, which further discredited the process. --Recovery of Weapons and Stolen Property: The recovery of weapons was found to be legally insufficient as it was not done following a proper disclosure by the appellants. The court also found the recovery of the stolen money to be unreliable since there was no evidence linking the specific recovered money to the robbery. The police failed to produce the recovered money in court, which further weakened the prosecution's case. --Forensic Evidence: The court noted significant delays in sending the forensic evidence (empty shells and pistols) to the lab, which raised concerns about potential tampering. This delay, coupled with the simultaneous sending of the evidence to the lab, was found to be highly suspicious, and the forensic report was deemed unreliable. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented was found to be highly doubtful, and as a result, the convictions and sentences of the appellants were set aside. The court ordered the immediate release of the appellants if they were not required in any other case. The revision petition seeking an enhancement of sentences was dismissed as infructuous. -----Citations/Precedents: Shafqat Mehmood and Others vs. The State (2011 SCMR 537): The court relied on this precedent regarding the importance of proper identification procedures and the unreliability of faulty identification parades. Ali Sher and Others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 707): The court cited this case to emphasize the importance of timely sending forensic evidence to the lab and the negative implications of delays. Hashim Qasim and Another vs. The State (2017 SCMR 986): The court referred to this case to underscore that medical evidence alone cannot identify the culprits and must be corroborated by other reliable evidence. The court's decision reflects the principle that convictions must be based on solid, reliable evidence, and any procedural lapses or doubts in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, Arab Khan, filed an appeal under Section 417 (2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of Rajesh Masih, Amir Masih, and Raheel Masih by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Peshawar. The respondents were acquitted from charges under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, related to the murder of the appellant's brother, Sarmast Khan, during a robbery on January 21, 2010. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the circumstantial evidence and the confessional statement of one of the accused, Rajesh Masih. 2- Whether the confessional statement of Rajesh Masih was voluntary and credible. Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Confessional Statement: The court found that Rajesh Masih’s confessional statement was not voluntary, as he had been in police custody and alleged physical torture. The statement was retracted, which further diminished its reliability. The court emphasized that for a confession to be credible, it must be made voluntarily, free from any external pressure or coercion. --Circumstantial Evidence: The case was based on circumstantial evidence, as there was no direct eyewitness testimony. The court scrutinized the evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and the robbed motor car, and found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear and unbroken chain of events linking the respondents to the crime. --Doubt and Acquittal: The court reiterated the principle that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, they are entitled to benefit from it. The court noted several inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the recovery of the weapon and the involvement of PW Allah Ditta, who was neither charged as an accused nor properly examined as a witness. --Legal Standard for Appeal Against Acquittal: The court emphasized that an appeal against acquittal carries a higher burden of proof, as the respondents enjoy a double presumption of innocence. The court found that the trial court’s judgment was based on a correct appreciation of the evidence and did not warrant interference. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal of the respondents. It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court had rightly acquitted the respondents. The surety amount deposited by the respondents was ordered to be returned. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Parvez & others v. The State (2007 SCMR 670): Discussed the importance of voluntariness in confessions and the consequences of unexplained delays in recording confessions. Intizar Hussain v. Hamza Amir & others (2017 SCMR 633): Highlighted that in cases of conflicting evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Sheo Swarup & others v. King Emperor (AIR 1934 PC 227): Emphasized the limited scope of appellate interference in acquittal cases. Said Rasool v. Sajid & others (2012 P Cr. L J 1699 FSC): Reinforced the double presumption of innocence attached to acquittals. The decision reinforces the principle that acquittals should only be overturned when there is a clear misapplication of law or when the trial court’s decision is entirely unreasonable. In this case, the court found no such grounds for interference.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) against the respondents, alleging that her daughter was induced by the respondents to enter into a marriage without her consent. It was further alleged that the respondents later broke into the petitioner’s house and took away gold ornaments, clothes, and cash. The trial court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C after an inquiry conducted by the police found no grounds to proceed against the respondents. The petitioner then sought special leave to appeal against this dismissal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dismissal of the private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C can be equated with an order of acquittal. 2- Whether the complaint was rightly dismissed by the trial court based on the lack of sufficient grounds for proceeding. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court held that the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C is not equivalent to an acquittal. The court explained that the trial court had not charged the accused or conducted a full trial; rather, it had dismissed the complaint after determining that there were insufficient grounds to proceed. The court emphasized that the legal provisions under Section 203 Cr.P.C allow for the dismissal of a complaint if the preliminary inquiry or investigation does not reveal sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings. Consequently, the court found that the petitioner's appeal was not maintainable and upheld the dismissal of the complaint. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 35 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 1999 P.Cr.L.J 638 PLD 1981 FSC 308 PLD 1977 Lahore 301 2006 MLD 298 2000 SCMR 1904 (Abdul Wahab Khan v. Muhammad Nawaz and others) PLJ 1997 Cr. C 5 1996 P.Cr.L.J 1615 PLD 1998 Lahore 539 AIR 1920 Patna 270 1988 P.Cr.L.J 864 (FSC) PLD 1984 Lahore 323 PLD 1964 Karachi 316 AIR 1963 SC 1430 AIR 1927 Madras 19 (FB) AIR 1926 Sindh 188 (DB) 2010 SCMR 1816 (Zafar and others v. Umar Hayat and others) This case reaffirms the legal principle that the dismissal of a complaint at the preliminary stage does not amount to an acquittal and that the courts have the discretion to dismiss a complaint if the inquiry does not justify further proceedings.

Summary: Conviction granted---Background: The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offenses of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and robbery under Section 392 PPC, in connection with an incident that occurred on August 15, 2011. The appellant, along with three unidentified accomplices, was accused of attempting to rob the complainant's motorcycle. During the robbery, the appellant allegedly shot and killed Abdul Razzaq. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and imposed fines for both the murder and robbery charges. The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing that the evidence against him was insufficient and that the trial court had erred in its judgment. ----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on the testimony of closely related witnesses. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellate court upheld the trial court's conviction. The court found that the testimony of the complainant and the other eyewitnesses, despite being related to the victim, was credible and consistent with the facts of the case. The court noted that the complainant and eyewitnesses had identified the appellant as the person who shot the deceased, and this identification was not effectively challenged during cross-examination. The court also considered the recovery of the crime weapon on the appellant's pointation as corroborative evidence. The delay in lodging the FIR was deemed justifiable due to the circumstances, including the time taken for the funeral of the deceased. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were affirmed.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance VIII of 1979, alleging that the respondents had falsely accused him of zina (illicit sexual relations) and other related offenses. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). The petitioner then filed a revision petition challenging this dismissal, claiming that the trial court's decision was contrary to Islamic law and based on misreading of the evidence. ----Issues: 1- Whether the statements made by the respondents in a civil suit for damages constituted an offense of Qazf (false accusation of zina) under Islamic law. 2- Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing the private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the complaint. The court found that the statements made by the respondents during the civil suit, which the petitioner claimed constituted Qazf, were not challenged in cross-examination and therefore were deemed to have been accepted. The court further noted that the petitioner had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the offense of Qazf. The court emphasized that cross-examination is a vital right to challenge evidence, and the failure to do so weakened the petitioner’s case. Additionally, the court found the petitioner’s claims to be unnatural and contrary to societal norms, further undermining the credibility of his allegations. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Nuzhat Jabin Versus Jamil Hussain Shah and 2 others - PLD 1996 FSC 15 Abdul Rashid Versus Mst. Safia Bibi - PLD 1986 FSC 10 Haji Bakhtawar Said Muhammad Versus Mst. Dur-e-Shahwar Begum and others - 2010 SCMR 681 Muhammad Humayun Versus The State - PLD 1997 FSC 5 This case underscores the importance of cross-examination in challenging the credibility of evidence, especially in cases involving accusations of serious offenses such as Qazf. The failure to cross-examine the respondent’s statements was a key factor in the court's decision to uphold the dismissal of the complaint.

Summary: Background: The case involves an appeal against the acquittal of a respondent accused of committing Zina-bil-Jabar (rape) under Sections 10 and 11 of The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The appellant, father of the alleged victim, reported that the respondent, along with two unknown associates, had assaulted his daughter on the night of March 5, 2003. The victim was allegedly abducted and later returned to her home on March 7, 2003, after being sheltered by a local resident. The trial court acquitted the respondent, leading to this appeal by the appellant. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR undermines the credibility of the prosecution's case. 2- Whether the discrepancies and improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses affect their reliability. 3- Whether the medical evidence and the victim's testimony were sufficient to establish the charge of Zina-bil-Jabar against the respondent. 4- Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondent based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to acquit the respondent. The court found the delay in lodging the FIR significant, as it raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations. The appellant’s explanation for the delay, citing attempts at a compromise by local elders, was deemed unconvincing and possibly an afterthought. The testimonies of the victim (P.W.4), the appellant (P.W.5), and the eye-witness (P.W.7) contained material contradictions and dishonest improvements, particularly concerning the circumstances of the alleged assault. The court noted that these discrepancies were sufficient to undermine the credibility of the witnesses. The medical evidence, while indicating that sexual intercourse had occurred, was not enough to convict the respondent given the issues with the witnesses' testimonies. The court emphasized that medical evidence alone could not establish the identity of the perpetrator. The court observed that the prosecution failed to produce crucial witnesses, such as the individuals who allegedly sheltered the victim, which could have corroborated the victim's account. The absence of this evidence led the court to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution. The court concluded that the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was neither perverse nor speculative, and there was no sufficient ground to overturn the acquittal. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent’s acquittal was affirmed. ----Citations/Precedents: Farman Ahmed v. Muhammad Inayat and others (2007 SCMR 1825) Mushtaq Hussain and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 45) Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State (PLD 2001 S.C. 107) Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State (1993 SCMR 550) Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486) Shahzad alias Shaddu v. The State (2002 SCMR 1009) Shakeel and 5 others v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 47) Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) Akhtar Ali and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) Sardar Bibi and another v. Munir Ahmed and others (2017 SCMR 344)

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: This case involves an appeal filed by two appellants, Rahib Ali and Mst. Ruqayya Bibi, against a judgment that convicted them under Section 10(2) of The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court had sentenced both appellants to five years rigorous imprisonment, with additional punishments, while acquitting them of charges under Section 380 of The Pakistan Penal Code. The charges stemmed from allegations by Bilal Ahmad, the respondent, who claimed that the appellants had committed theft and engaged in illicit sexual relations. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the subsequent filing of the private complaint casts doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case. 2- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, is reliable and sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 3- Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellants based on the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellate court overturned the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellants. --Delay in Reporting: The court found the delay in filing the FIR (from September 2, 2004, to September 12, 2004) and the subsequent delay in filing the private complaint (on April 26, 2006) to be significant. The court noted that the complainant and the primary witness (Iqbal Hussain) were aware of the alleged incident and the police's distortion of facts early on, yet they failed to take prompt action, casting serious doubt on the veracity of their claims. --Witness Credibility: The court scrutinized the testimonies of the respondent (P.W.1) and Iqbal Hussain (P.W.2), noting material contradictions and dishonest improvements in their statements. The court observed that the story presented by the witnesses was not credible, especially given the circumstances of the alleged incident, such as the open doors during the commission of the crime, which seemed implausible. --Lack of Corroboration: The court emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence to support the allegations of Zina and theft. The only evidence against the appellants was the testimony of the complainant and the primary witness, which was found to be unreliable. The court also highlighted that no credible explanation was provided for the delay in filing the complaint and that the complainant failed to pursue the matter promptly, further weakening the case. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was overturned, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. ----Citations/Precedents: Zafar and others v. Umer Hayat and others (2010 SCMR 1816) Muhammad Salim and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and another (2001 SCMR 1738) Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and 2 others (PLD 2003 SC 14) Qutab-ud-Din v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 101) Allah Ditta v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 52) Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2009 SCMR 916) Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486) Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Akhtar Ali and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) Allah Bachaya and another v. The State (PLD 2008 SC 349)

Summary: Background: Fiaz Ahmed and Allah Nawaz, the appellants, were convicted under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, for accusing Mst. Riffat Farnaz of committing zina. They were sentenced to eighty stripes by the trial court. The case arose from a personal dispute between Fiaz Ahmed and his former wife, Riffat Farnaz. After divorcing Riffat, Fiaz Ahmed accused her and her current husband, Malik Muhammad Qadeer, of zina. Riffat filed a private complaint under the Qazf Ordinance against Fiaz and others for making false allegations. The trial court convicted Fiaz Ahmed and Allah Nawaz for Qazf. However, Riffat later pardoned the appellants in the name of Allah Almighty, leading to a compromise between the parties. Consequently, the appellants filed an appeal against their conviction, and the trial court forwarded the case to the Federal Shariat Court for confirmation of the punishment of Hadd. Issues: 1) Whether the compromise and pardon granted by the complainant (Riffat Farnaz) can result in the acquittal of the appellants. ---2) Whether the punishment of Hadd for Qazf can be waived following a compromise. --- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court analyzed the case in light of Islamic jurisprudence regarding Qazf and the rights of individuals. The court held that: The right of the complainant (Riffat Farnaz) is predominant in cases of Qazf, and she has the authority to pardon the appellants. Islamic law permits the pardon or waiver of Hadd in Qazf cases when the complainant forgives the accused, as the right of the individual in such cases is primary. The court further explained that since Riffat Farnaz had forgiven the appellants, their sentence of Hadd (eighty stripes) could be waived. Accordingly, the court accepted the compromise, acquitted the appellants, and set aside the punishment. --- Citations/Precedents: The Holy Quran (24:4): The verse concerning the punishment for false accusations of zina. Jurisprudential views of Dr. Wahbah Zuhaili, Sayyed Sabiq, and A.Qader Audah on the predominance of individual rights in Qazf cases. Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court acquitted Fiaz Ahmed and Allah Nawaz of all charges following the pardon granted by Riffat Farnaz. The criminal reference was answered in the negative, and the appellants' bail bonds were discharged.