Summary: Background: A petitioner filed a Shariat petition challenging sub-section (3) of Section 18 of "The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance No.XLVI of 2001." The petitioner argued that this provision, which validated financial documents executed before the enforcement of the Ordinance, was repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The petitioner specifically cited concerns regarding the Islamic principles of evidence and the necessity for attestation of documents involving financial transactions. ----Issues: 1- Whether sub-section (3) of Section 18 of "The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance No.XLVI of 2001" is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the validation of financial documents executed before the Ordinance's enforcement contradicts Islamic principles, specifically the requirements laid out in the Quran and the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court held that the impugned section (18(3)) of the Ordinance was not repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The court reasoned that the provision served a necessary purpose in avoiding legal chaos and protecting the integrity of financial transactions executed before the enforcement of the Ordinance. The court emphasized that Islamic law principles often apply prospectively and cited several instances from Islamic teachings and traditions where past actions were not retroactively invalidated upon the introduction of new prohibitions. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the protection of past financial transactions was consistent with the principles of justice and equity in Islamic law. ----Citations/Precedents: Verse 282 of Surah Al-Baqarah: Addressing the principles of writing down debts and the attestation by witnesses. Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Regarding the requirements for attestation and proof of execution of documents. Hadith on division of inheritance before and after Islam: Addressing the treatment of pre-Islamic practices in light of new Islamic laws.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Nasrullah, sought special leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents who were accused under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazaf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. The case arose after the respondents had accused the petitioner and another individual, Asad, of abducting Mst. Ishrat Bibi with the intent of committing zina (fornication). The petitioner and his co-accused were acquitted of these charges by the trial court, and the petitioner subsequently filed a complaint under the Qazaf Ordinance, alleging that the respondents had falsely accused him of zina. The trial court dismissed this complaint, leading to the current appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents' acquittal under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. was appropriate, considering the petitioner's claim that the respondents had falsely accused him of zina. 2- Whether the elements of the Offence of Qazaf, particularly the intent to harm the petitioner's reputation, were sufficiently established to warrant a conviction of the respondents. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. The court reasoned that the allegations of zina were not found false by the trial court; instead, the petitioner was acquitted due to a lack of sufficient evidence, which led to the benefit of the doubt. The court emphasized that the Offence of Qazaf requires a clear intention to harm the accused's reputation through false accusations of zina. In this case, no such intention was established during the trial. The respondents, particularly the victim, were found to have made statements under legal obligation without any intent to harm. The court also noted that the acquittal of the petitioner in the zina case did not automatically mean that the respondents were guilty of Qazaf, as the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt rather than a clear finding of falsehood. ----Citations/Precedents: Bakhat Ali and others Vs. The State (1993 P.Cr.L.J 1872): This precedent supports the principle that a Qazaf accusation requires a clear finding of falsehood and intention to harm, which was not present in the current case. Shahid Maqsood Siddiqui Vs. The State (2003 SD-68): This case highlights that the solitary statement of a victim can be sufficient for conviction in zina cases, but it also implies that failure to secure a conviction does not automatically lead to a Qazaf offense. Shehzad alias Shadu and others Vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1009) and Rana Shahbaz Ahmed etc. Vs The State (2002 SC 118): These cases reiterate the sufficiency of a victim's statement in zina cases and reinforce the importance of proving malicious intent in Qazaf cases.

Summary: Background: The appellants were convicted for their involvement in a dacoity and murder that occurred on the night between April 6 and 7, 2011. The incident took place at a poultry farm where the complainant's brother, Bakht Bahadur, was murdered, and 5000 chickens were stolen. The appellants were charged under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which deals with dacoity with murder. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellants' convictions under Section 396 PPC were justified based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether the retracted confessional statement of one of the appellants, Jamshaid, was admissible and sufficient for conviction. 3- Whether the trial court correctly imposed sentences based on the role of each appellant in the crime. 4- Whether the trial court's leniency in sentencing Jamshaid was appropriate given his involvement in the crime. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellate court upheld the convictions of all the appellants under Section 396 PPC. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the charges against the appellants through a combination of confessional statements, recovery of stolen property, and other circumstantial evidence. The court ruled that the retracted confessional statement of Jamshaid was admissible and reliable, as it was corroborated by other circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the crime weapon and stolen items. The court cited precedents where retracted confessions were considered sufficient for conviction if corroborated by other evidence. The court rejected the defense's argument that the delay in recording the confessional statement invalidated its admissibility, noting that the delay did not affect the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession. The court found that the trial court's leniency in sentencing Jamshaid to ten years of rigorous imprisonment was unwarranted given his active role in the crime. The court enhanced Jamshaid's sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining the sentences of the other appellants. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 396 PPC: Conviction for dacoity with murder, involving more than four participants. Retracted Confession: The court cited precedents that allowed retracted confessions to be admissible and sufficient for conviction if corroborated (Wazir Khan vs. The State, 1989 SCMR 446; Khuda Bakhsh vs. The State, 2004 SCMR 331). Article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Confessional statements can be considered as circumstantial evidence against co-accused persons if tried jointly. The appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment with modifications to Jamshaid's sentence, thereby affirming the convictions and sentences of the other appellants.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant challenged the acquittal of the respondents, who were charged with murder under Section 302/324/34 PPC and Section 17(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The incident involved the complainant, along with two others, being attacked by three armed assailants while traveling on a motorbike. One of the victims was fatally injured. The trial court acquitted the respondents, holding that the charge of Haraabah (robbery with murder) was not proven. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court correctly acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 17(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. 2- Whether the Federal Shariat Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given the nature of the charges. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Charge of Haraabah: The court found that the essential element of Haraabah, which involves robbery or extortion of property, was completely missing in this case. The assailants did not demand or take any property from the victims, nor did they show any intention to do so. The incident was purely an act of murder without any attempt at robbery. Therefore, the charge under Section 17(4) of the Ordinance was inappropriate. --Jurisdiction of the Court: The court held that since the case was purely one of murder and attempted murder, it did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. The Peshawar High Court had the proper jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the transfer of the case to the Federal Shariat Court was deemed void and illegal. The appeal was dismissed, and the case was returned to the Peshawar High Court for a decision on the murder charge. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 17(4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979: Defines the crime of Haraabah, which includes robbery with violence. The court held that the elements of this offense were not present in the case. Section 302/324/34 PPC: The case was more appropriately charged under these sections, which deal with murder and attempted murder, rather than under the Hudood Ordinance. The court upheld the acquittal of the respondents and determined that the Federal Shariat Court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The case was remanded to the Peshawar High Court.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of three accused individuals who were charged under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, along with Sections 302, 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The case involved an incident where the appellant and his brother were attacked at their residence by three to four individuals, resulting in the fatal shooting of the appellant's brother. ----Issues: 1- Whether the charge under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was correctly framed. 2- Whether the Federal Shariat Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal based on the charges framed. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Framing of Charges: The court held that the charge under Section 17(4) of the Hudood Ordinance was incorrectly framed. The facts of the case indicated that it was a straightforward instance of trespass and murder without any element of theft or extortion, which are necessary to qualify the offense as Haraabah under Section 17(4). Therefore, the appropriate charges should have been under Sections 302, 452, and 34 PPC. --Jurisdiction: Since the case did not meet the criteria for Haraabah under the Hudood Ordinance, the Federal Shariat Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court noted that the appellant may have approached the Federal Shariat Court in good faith, but the misframing of charges by the trial court did not confer the necessary jurisdiction to the Federal Shariat Court. The appeal was dismissed due to the Federal Shariat Court's lack of jurisdiction. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 302, 452, and 34 PPC: Pertaining to murder, trespass, and common intention. Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979: Pertaining to Haraabah (armed robbery involving murder or grievous harm).

Summary: Background: The appellants were convicted under Section 302-C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, and sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100,000 each, and payment of Diyat of Rs. 300,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased, Faizullah. They were also awarded the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence, arguing that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court issued a show cause notice to consider enhancing their sentences under Section 302(b) PPC. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302-C PPC was appropriate given the facts of the case. 2- Whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 3- Whether the trial court correctly handled the case, including the issues of FIR registration, witness testimony, and the medical evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Inconsistencies in the FIR and Witness Testimonies: The court observed significant discrepancies in the registration of the FIR and the statements of the witnesses. The FIR was registered before the deceased reached the hospital, and one key witness, Abdul Razzaq, was initially described as an unknown passerby, which later changed, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case. --Doubts About the Prosecution's Narrative: The court found the prosecution's narrative questionable, particularly regarding the presence of the complainant at the scene and the lack of explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused. The medical evidence also conflicted with the eyewitness accounts, particularly regarding the number of injuries on the deceased and the nature of the injuries on the accused. --Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The contradictions in the evidence, lack of corroboration, and failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused led the court to conclude that the prosecution's case was not reliable. The court set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants, Sahib Khan and Behram Khan, under Section 302-C PPC, granting them the benefit of the doubt and ordering their release. The court also extended the benefit of this judgment to the third co-convict, Jilani, who had not filed an appeal but was similarly situated. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2002 SC 108 1995 SCMR 1345 1995 SCMR 599-601 (Ata Muhammad and another vs. The State) Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) 2011 SCMR 323 (Amin Ali and another vs. The State) 1972 SCMR 194 (Muhammad Aslam and 5 others vs. The State)

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 396 PPC by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for their involvement in a robbery and murder that took place on July 17, 2006. The appellants Fida Hussain, Makhan, and Muhammad Hassan were awarded death and life imprisonment sentences, while Muhammad Ali received a lesser sentence. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with others, robbed the complainant’s house, during which the complainant’s son was fatally shot. The appellants were arrested during a police encounter, and the prosecution claimed recovery of stolen items from their possession. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the prosecution's case. 2- Whether the identification parade and the identification of the accused by the witnesses were reliable. 3- Whether the recovery of stolen items from the accused was legitimate and could be used as evidence against them. 4- Whether the contradictions in witness statements and the lack of eyewitness testimony weaken the prosecution's case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Delay in FIR: The court noted the significant delay of five days in lodging the FIR without any plausible explanation. This delay, combined with the complainant's admission of consulting with family before filing the report, raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution's story. --Identification Parade: The identification of the accused was deemed unreliable. The accused were allegedly masked during the incident, and no specific description was provided in the FIR. The identification parade was held 12 days after the arrest, with no explanation for the delay. The court found this to be highly suspicious and doubted the validity of the identification. --Recovery of Stolen Items: The court questioned the legitimacy of the recovery process. The items were allegedly found after an encounter, but no independent witnesses were involved, which is a violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C. The prosecution's claim that the accused were carrying the stolen items for over a month after the incident was also considered implausible. --Contradictions and Lack of Eyewitness Testimony: The court highlighted contradictions in the statements of the complainant and his wife regarding key details. Additionally, the prosecution failed to produce the only eyewitness, Mst. Saba, who was present during the murder. The absence of independent witnesses and the discrepancies in the testimonies weakened the prosecution's case significantly. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellants, leading to their acquittal. The murder reference was answered in the negative, and the appellants were ordered to be released. ----Citations/Precedents: Ahmed Sher v. State (PLD 1995 FSC 20) Muhammad Fayyaz v. State (2012 SCMR 522) Sabir Ali v. State (2011 SCMR 563) Shafqat Mehmood v. State (2011 SCMR 537) Ghulam Rasul's case (1988 SCMR 557) Mahmood Ahmed's case (1995 SCMR 127) Khadim Hussain's case (1985 SCMR 721) Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) The court emphasized that the lack of reliable evidence, unexplained delays, and procedural flaws in the investigation rendered the prosecution’s case untenable, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Summary: Background: A petition was filed challenging the amendment to Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which grants bail concessions exclusively to women accused of certain offenses. The petitioner argued that this amendment is discriminatory, violating the principles of equality and justice as outlined in Islamic law and the Constitution of Pakistan. The petitioner claimed that the law unfairly discriminates against male accused, depriving them of similar bail rights. ----Issues: 1- Does the amendment to Section 497 Cr.P.C., which provides bail concessions only to women accused, violate the principles of equality and justice as per Islamic law? 2- Is the amendment in conflict with Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees equality before the law? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction and Constitutional Matters: The court noted that it does not have the jurisdiction to interpret Article 25 of the Constitution, as this falls within the exclusive domain of the Supreme Court. However, the court referenced the Supreme Court's decision, which permits reasonable classification based on gender, financial status, or other distinctions that serve a legitimate purpose. --Islamic Perspective: The court evaluated the petition in light of Islamic principles, noting that while equality is fundamental, it does not necessarily mean identical treatment in all circumstances. Islamic teachings recognize different roles and responsibilities for men and women, justifying legal distinctions such as those in Section 497 Cr.P.C. --Social Responsibilities of Women: The court emphasized that women’s unique social roles, particularly in child-rearing and family care, warrant special legal concessions. These distinctions are not discriminatory but rather an acknowledgment of the different circumstances faced by women. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the amendment to Section 497 Cr.P.C. is consistent with both the Constitution and Islamic principles. The bail concession for women accused was upheld as legitimate and non-discriminatory. ----Citations/Precedents: Government of Balochistan Vs. Azizullah Memon (PLD 1993 SC 341) Article 25(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan Verses from the Quran and Hadith (specific references were not directly cited by the court in the judgment but were referenced in the petitioner’s argument) The court reaffirmed that the reasonable classification of laws based on gender is permissible, especially when it addresses the unique roles and responsibilities of women in society.

Summary: Background: The appellants were convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sibi, for the murder of three individuals during a robbery. The appellants were also sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for robbery. The prosecution's case was based on the FIR lodged by the complainant, who identified the appellants during an identification parade. The appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 392 of the PPC. -----Issues: 1- Whether the identification of the appellants during the parade was reliable and conducted according to the law. 2- Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove the involvement of the appellants in the crime. 3- Whether the medical evidence was consistent with the prosecution's case and supported the conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification Parade: The court held that the identification parade was conducted properly under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate. The appellants were identified by the witnesses correctly, even though they were mingled with other individuals. The court found no illegality in the conduct of the identification parade and dismissed the appellants' arguments that the identification was unreliable. --Sufficiency of Evidence: The court concluded that the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses were consistent and corroborated by the medical evidence. The appellants' disclosures during the investigation led to the recovery of the crime weapons, which matched the spent cartridges found at the scene. --Medical Evidence: The medical evidence was found to be consistent with the prosecution's case. The injuries described by the medical officer matched the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and supported the conclusion that the deceased were killed by the appellants. The court upheld the convictions and death sentences of the appellants, finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment. The appellants' appeal was dismissed, and the death sentences were confirmed. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2003 Karachi 470: Established that an identification parade is not a legal requirement but a rule of propriety to ensure the authenticity of the identification. PLD 2001 Quetta 47: Held that mere relationship with the deceased does not discredit the testimony of witnesses. SCMR 1973 Page 69: Confirmed that related witnesses are reliable if they have no motive to falsely implicate the accused. 2009 YLR 1557: Clarified that Section 103 of the Cr.P.C. does not apply when an accused leads to the discovery of a fact within their special knowledge. 2009 SCMR 1440: Explained that multiple information leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat. The court applied these precedents to affirm the trial court's findings and reject the appellants' arguments, resulting in the confirmation of the death sentences.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Charsadda, under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for robbery and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. Additionally, Saadat Khan and Iqbal were also convicted under Section 411 PPC as receivers of stolen property and sentenced to two years of imprisonment with fines. The incident involved a robbery at the residence of the complainant, Altaf Hussain, on 3rd May 2011, where the culprits allegedly stole gold ornaments, cash, and other valuables. The complainant identified Saadat Khan as one of the robbers after he was informed by the police that Saadat had been arrested. ----Issues: 1- Whether the identification of the appellants was legally credible and sufficient to support the conviction. 2- Whether the recoveries of stolen property from the appellants were conducted in compliance with the law, specifically under Section 103 Cr.P.C. 3- Whether the conviction under Section 411 PPC as receivers of stolen property was legally sustainable. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification Issues: The court found that the identification of Saadat Khan by the complainant was not credible. The complainant had not initially mentioned that he could identify the culprits in the FIR, and his claim that he recognized Saadat during the robbery after his mask fell off was deemed an afterthought. The identification procedure was further compromised as it lacked proper legal safeguards. --Recovery and Compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C.: The court noted that the recoveries of stolen property were not conducted in compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C., which mandates the presence of independent witnesses during searches and recoveries. The recoveries were primarily based on police witnesses, and crucial independent witnesses like Ali Haider were not produced in court, raising doubts about the prosecution's case. --Conviction under Section 411 PPC: The court highlighted that for a conviction under Section 411 PPC (receiving stolen property), the receiver must not be the person who initially committed the theft. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants were not the original thieves, the conviction under Section 411 PPC was found to be unsustainable. Given the lack of credible identification, the failure to comply with legal procedures during recoveries, and the incorrect application of Section 411 PPC, the court acquitted all three appellants, setting aside the trial court's judgment and ordering their immediate release.