Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad, under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sentenced to death for his alleged involvement in a robbery and murder incident. The prosecution's case was based on an incident on 10th May 2011, where the appellant and two other accused (still absconding) allegedly robbed and murdered Ajeet Kumar, who was transporting Rs. 3,000,000 in cash. The appellant was arrested and charged, with the main evidence against him being his alleged confession to the police and subsequent recovery of stolen items and a weapon. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved Abdul Waheed's involvement in the robbery and murder beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 17(4) of the Hudood Ordinance was legally sustainable given the evidentiary requirements of tazkiyah-al-shuhood. 3- Whether the procedural lapses and lack of independent evidence affected the validity of the conviction. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Insufficient Evidence and Procedural Lapses: The court found significant procedural lapses in the investigation, including the lack of independent witnesses during the recovery of stolen items and the weapon, contrary to Section 103 Cr.P.C. requirements. Additionally, the main witnesses either did not implicate the appellant or were declared hostile. The appellant's injuries, including a potentially fatal gunshot wound, raised doubts about the prosecution's narrative of the events. --Confession and Tazkiyah-al-Shuhood: The court noted that the alleged confession made to the police was not admissible as it was not made before a magistrate and was not supported by independent witnesses. The legal requirements of tazkiyah-al-shuhood, essential for a conviction under Section 17(4) of the Hudood Ordinance, were not fulfilled. The absence of qualified witnesses testifying to the appellant's involvement rendered the conviction under this section legally untenable. --Acquittal and Rejection of Murder Reference: Given the significant doubts and lack of credible evidence, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and acquitted him of all charges. The court also rejected the murder reference, which sought confirmation of the death sentence, concluding that the conviction and sentence could not be sustained under the circumstances. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Afzal Vs. The State 1983 SCMR 1 State through Advocate General Sindh Vs. Bashir and others PLD 1997 Supreme Court 408 Muhammad Azam Vs. The State PLD 1996 Supreme Court 67 Muhammad Saleem and others Vs. The State 2005 SCMR 849 These precedents emphasize the importance of independent witnesses in recovery proceedings, the necessity of fulfilling tazkiyah-al-shuhood for Hudood convictions, and the inadmissibility of confessions made solely to police without magistrate oversight.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a Shariat Review Petition challenging specific sections of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, arguing that these sections were against the injunctions of Islam. The challenged sections included provisions that allowed the Chairman of the Service Tribunal's opinion to prevail in case of a tie among tribunal members, and provisions related to the limitation period for filing appeals. ----Issues: 1- Is the provision in the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, that allows the Chairman’s opinion to prevail in case of a tie among tribunal members, against the injunctions of Islam? 2- Are the provisions of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, regarding the limitation period for filing appeals repugnant to Islamic principles? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Chairman's Prevailing Opinion (Section 3-A(2)(c)): The court held that the provision allowing the Chairman’s opinion to prevail in case of a tie was repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The court reasoned that Islam advocates equality among human beings, and no individual, including the Chairman, should have preferential treatment in judicial matters. The court cited Islamic teachings emphasizing equality and the lack of superiority among individuals, which supports the view that all members of a tribunal should have equal say without the Chairman’s opinion being decisive by default. --Limitation Period (Sections 4(1) with Proviso (A), 6, and 7): The court dismissed the petitioner’s argument regarding the limitation period for filing appeals, holding that such procedural laws are necessary for the administration of justice and are not against Islamic injunctions. The court reasoned that limitation laws are designed to ensure timely resolution of disputes and prevent the reopening of old matters where evidence may no longer be available. The court distinguished between the rights of individuals in legal matters and religious obligations, noting that while religious duties may be fulfilled without a time limit, legal claims must be pursued within a prescribed period to maintain order and justice. ----Citations/Precedents: Maqbool Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1989 FSC, page 89) This case discussed the principles of limitation and the importance of pursuing claims within the prescribed time to ensure justice. SCMR 1991 page 2075 This ruling by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural laws regarding limitation do not usurp substantive rights and are necessary for the orderly administration of justice. Islamic Teachings on Equality: Verses from the Holy Quran (49:13, 4:1) and Hadith from the Prophet (PBUH) emphasizing equality among all human beings were cited to support the decision that the Chairman's opinion should not hold more weight than that of other tribunal members.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which permits a wife to exercise the right of divorce (Talaq) if it has been delegated to her by her husband. The petitioner argued that this provision, and the corresponding clause in the Nikahnama (marriage contract), was contrary to Islamic injunctions. The petitioner had previously unsuccessfully challenged his ex-wife's exercise of this right in the High Court and the Supreme Court before bringing the matter to the Federal Shariat Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the right of divorce (Talaq) can be delegated to the wife under Islamic law. 2- Whether the process outlined in Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is consistent with Islamic injunctions. 3- Whether the terminology and procedural requirements in the ordinance are appropriate and in line with Shariah. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Delegation of Divorce (Talaq-e-Tafweez): The court held that the delegation of the right to pronounce Talaq to the wife (Talaq-e-Tafweez) is permissible under Islamic law. This delegation serves as a safeguard for women in cases where the husband is cruel, neglects his duties, or is absent for long periods. The court noted that this practice has been accepted by the majority of Sunni Muslim jurists and is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence. --Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961: The court acknowledged that the ordinance was enacted following the recommendations of a commission that recognized the legality of Talaq-e-Tafweez. The court found no contradiction between Section 8 and the injunctions of Islam, as the ordinance simply codifies a practice already accepted by Islamic jurists. --Jurisdictional Limitation: The court concluded that since the issue pertains to Muslim Personal Law—a category exempt from the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court—the petition was not maintainable. The court referred to a precedent that established the limitation of the court’s jurisdiction in matters that are deeply rooted in the personal law of any Muslim sect. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1994 SC 619: This case discussed the scope of the Federal Shariat Court’s jurisdiction concerning Muslim Personal Law and was cited to justify the court's refusal to entertain the petition based on jurisdictional grounds.

Summary: Background: The appellant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondents, under Section 10(2) of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant claimed that Mst. Masahiba Khan, who he alleged to be his legally wedded wife, had contracted a second marriage with Shahbaz Ahmed Khan, thereby committing the offense of Zina. ----Issues: 1- Whether the marriage between the appellant, Abdullah, and Mst. Masahiba Khan was valid and legally recognized. 2- Whether the marriage between the respondents, Shahbaz Ahmed Khan and Mst. Masahiba Khan, was lawful or constituted an act of Zina under the law. 3- Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was justified given the circumstances and evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Validity of Marriage Between Abdullah and Mst. Masahiba Khan: The court held that the marriage between Abdullah and Mst. Masahiba Khan was not legally recognized. The Family Court had already decreed in favor of Mst. Masahiba Khan in her suit for jactitation of marriage, declaring that no valid marriage existed between her and Abdullah. This decree was upheld by the District Judge and later by the Sindh High Court, thus nullifying any claims Abdullah had regarding the marriage. --Marriage Between Respondents: The court determined that the marriage between Shahbaz Ahmed Khan and Mst. Masahiba Khan was lawful. The acknowledgment of the marriage by both respondents during their statements before the trial court was considered sufficient evidence of a valid marriage under Muslim law. The court referenced the legal principle that acknowledgment by the man of the woman as his wife is sufficient proof of a valid marriage. The court found no error in the trial court’s decision to acquit the respondents. Given the conclusive findings of the Family Court and the acknowledgment of marriage by the respondents, the court ruled that the acquittal was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed in limine. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1984 SC 95): The Supreme Court held that a decree passed by a Family Court is binding even upon the Supreme Court, emphasizing the finality and binding nature of such decrees. Abdul Waheed v. Asma Jehangir (PLD 2004 SC 219): The Supreme Court held that questions of marriage validity fall within the exclusive domain of Family Courts, reinforcing the binding nature of Family Court judgments on such matters. Para 268(c) of Muhammadan Law by Mullah: This principle was cited to support the notion that acknowledgment of marriage by the parties involved is sufficient proof of a valid marriage under Muslim law.

Summary: Background: The appellants were convicted under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to fines and imprisonment for defaming the complainant, who was their former husband (in the case of two appellants). The complainant alleged that the appellants had falsely accused him of zina (adultery) in legal proceedings and in applications submitted to higher authorities. The trial court acquitted some of the accused but convicted the appellants for defamation. The complainant appealed for their conviction under the Offence of Qazf (false accusation of adultery) and sought an enhancement of their sentences. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellants’ statements constituted defamation under Section 500 PPC. 2- Whether the appellants’ actions amounted to Qazf under the Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. 3- Whether the trial court’s conviction of the appellants under Section 500 PPC was legally justified. 4- Whether the appellants acted with malicious intent or in good faith. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Defamation (Section 500 PPC): The court found that the essential element of defamation is mens rea or intent to harm. It determined that the appellants acted in good faith to protect their rights rather than with the intent to harm the complainant's reputation. Therefore, their actions fell under the exceptions provided in Section 499 PPC, leading to the setting aside of their conviction under Section 500 PPC. --Qazf (Offence of False Accusation of Zina): The court concluded that the appellants did not commit Qazf, as their statements did not unambiguously accuse the complainant of zina. It emphasized that the required evidence for imposing Hadd punishment, such as a confession or the testimony of two witnesses fulfilling the requirement of Tazkiyah-al-Shahood, was not present. --Lack of Malicious Intent: The court found no evidence of malicious intent, recognizing that the appellants’ actions were driven by a desire to assert their rights. Consequently, the trial court's conviction was not legally justified. --Acquittal of Other Accused and Dismissal of Appeals: The court upheld the trial court’s decision to acquit the other accused, finding no grounds for conviction. The appeals seeking enhancement of the appellants’ sentences and the reversal of the acquittals of other accused were dismissed. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1984 SC 95) – Held that the decree passed by the Family Court is binding even upon the Supreme Court. Abdul Waheed v. Asma Jehangir (PLD 2004 SC 219) – Held that the validity of a marriage falls within the exclusive domain of the Family Court, and the High Court should avoid controversy on this subject. PLD 2001-Karachi-115 – Emphasized that intent (mens rea) is a crucial element for constituting the offense of defamation.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, a father, filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, District Khanewal. The case revolves around the death of the appellant's daughter, who was found dead near a railway track under suspicious circumstances. Initially, the death was reported as a possible suicide after being run over by a train. The appellant, dissatisfied with the police investigation, filed a private complaint alleging that the respondents were responsible for the rape and murder of his daughter. ----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented by the appellant was sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the respondents were involved in the abduction, rape, and murder of the appellant's daughter. 3- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents of all charges. 4- Whether the circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution was sufficient to overturn the acquittal. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Sufficiency of Evidence: The court held that the evidence provided by the appellant was largely circumstantial and failed to establish a direct connection between the respondents and the crime. The court noted inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's narrative, which led to doubts about the reliability of the evidence. --Abduction, Rape, and Murder Allegations: The court found that the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen theory and extra-judicial confessions. The court emphasized that such evidence must be corroborated by strong, consistent facts, which were lacking in this case. The medical evidence also did not conclusively support the allegations of rape. --Trial Court’s Decision: The appellate court agreed with the trial court's assessment that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reiterated that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. --Circumstantial Evidence: The court held that while circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction, it must form a complete chain that leads to only one conclusion: the guilt of the accused. In this case, the chain of evidence was broken, and the circumstances presented by the prosecution did not conclusively point to the respondents' guilt. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' acquittal was upheld. However, the court noted that the case against the absconding accused would be considered separately upon his arrest. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1984 SC 95) - Emphasized the binding nature of Family Court decrees. Abdul Waheed v. Asma Jehangir (PLD 2004 SC 219) - Discussed the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts. Muhammad Kamran v. State (2003 SCMR 1070) - Outlined the requirements for accepting extra-judicial confessions. Muhabbat v. State (1990 PCr.LJ 73) - Discussed the standards for circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1955 SC 807) - Addressed the appellate court's role in re-assessing evidence in cases of acquittal.

Summary: Background: The appellant challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a case involving allegations of dacoity, zina-bil-jabr (rape), and other offenses under the Hudood Ordinance. The case originated from an incident on the night of 24/25 April 2004, where a group of armed individuals allegedly broke into the appellant's house, looted valuables, and committed zina-bil-jabr with the appellant's wife. The trial court acquitted the accused based on the evidence presented. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal against the acquittal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period under the applicable legal framework. 2- Whether the trial court's consolidated judgment, covering separate trials under ordinary law and the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, was legally valid. 3- Whether the failure to issue separate judgments for juvenile and adult accused constitutes a mere technical irregularity or a fundamental defect rendering the trial court's proceedings void. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Limitation Period: The Federal Shariat Court held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed 60-day limitation period under the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan (Procedure) Rules, 1981. The court ruled that these rules take precedence over the 30-day limitation period specified under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, for filing appeals. The appeal was deemed timely. --Legality of Consolidated Judgment: The court found that the trial court acted illegally by issuing a single consolidated judgment for the separate trials of juvenile and adult accused. Under Section 5 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, separate trials and judgments are mandatory for juvenile and adult accused. The trial court's failure to do so violated the legal requirements and rendered the judgment invalid. --Impact of Procedural Irregularities: The court rejected the respondents' argument that the issuance of a consolidated judgment was a technical irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Cr.P.C. Instead, the court held that the failure to issue separate judgments was a fundamental procedural defect, not merely a technicality, and affected the legality of the entire proceedings. The court ruled that the consolidated judgment lacked legal validity due to this jurisdictional defect. As a result, the Federal Shariat Court set aside the trial court's judgment dated 31 May 2008 and remanded the case back to the trial court. The trial court was directed to issue separate judgments for the juvenile and adult accused within two months, in compliance with the relevant legal provisions. ----Citations/Precedents: Hamayun Sarfraz Khan and others vs. Noor Muhammad, 2007 SCMR 37 Azmat Hussain vs. The State, PLD 1982 FSC 4 Ghulam Hussain and others vs. The State, 1996 P.Cr.L.J. 514 Article 203DD of the Constitution of Pakistan Section 5 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan (Procedure) Rules, 1981

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which allows a wife to exercise the right of divorce if it has been delegated to her by her husband in the Nikah Nama (marriage contract). The petitioner argued that the provision, as well as the corresponding Column No. 18 of the Nikah Nama, was repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. He contended that this provision has led to misuse and misinterpretation, resulting in social and moral issues within society. The petitioner had previously exhausted other legal remedies, including a writ petition before the High Court and an appeal to the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed. ----Issues: 1- Whether Section 8 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether a wife can exercise the right of divorce (Talaq-e-Tafweez) under Islamic law. 3- Whether the procedure for exercising Talaq-e-Tafweez as provided in Section 8 and Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is in violation of Shariah. 4- Whether the matter falls under "Muslim Personal Law," which is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, holding that the issue of Talaq-e-Tafweez, and its permissibility, is a matter of Muslim Personal Law, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court as defined under Article 203B(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan. The court observed that various schools of Islamic thought have different interpretations regarding the validity and procedure of Talaq-e-Tafweez. The court also noted that the enactment of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, was based on recommendations from a commission formed to address marriage and family law issues. This ordinance provided for the delegation of the right of divorce by the husband to the wife, a practice accepted by most Muslim jurists, albeit with procedural differences. Given the differing views among Islamic jurists, the court concluded that the issue falls within the realm of "Muslim Personal Law," which the court is barred from examining. Consequently, the petition was found to be not maintainable and was dismissed in limine. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1994 Supreme Court 607 Surah Al-Talaq (LXV) Surah Al-Baqrah (II), Verse 228 Surah Al-Nisa (IV), Verse 34 Surah Al-Ahzab (XXXIII), Verses 28-29 Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (Hadith related to Hazrat Aisha (R.A.))

Summary: Background: Several petitioners challenged different provisions of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, arguing that the law was repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The petitioners raised issues concerning the compulsory deduction of Zakat, exemptions based on different Islamic schools of thought, and the process of determining the Nisab (threshold for Zakat). ----Issues: 1- Whether the provisions of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, including the Nisab for Zakat and exemptions for followers of different Fiqhs, are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, constitutes "Muslim Personal Law" and is, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the impugned provisions of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, are not repugnant to the specific injunctions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. Additionally, the court held that the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance is not classified as "Muslim Personal Law" and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. The court found that the provisions challenged by the petitioners, including the Nisab for Zakat and the process for deductions, were consistent with Islamic principles. The court emphasized that exemptions granted under the law did not absolve individuals from the obligation of paying Zakat but allowed them to follow their own Fiqh's interpretation. The court referred to previous rulings, including the Supreme Court’s judgment, to affirm that the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance is not excluded from scrutiny under the Federal Shariat Court's jurisdiction. The petitioners were unable to provide sufficient evidence that the provisions were contrary to the Holy Quran and Sunnah, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. Outcome: The petitions were dismissed, and the court directed the relevant government ministries to ensure a uniform and transparent system of Zakat deduction and distribution in accordance with Islamic principles. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1991 FSC 35: Federal Shariat Court ruling on the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance. PLD 1994 SC 607: Supreme Court ruling remanding the case for fresh adjudication. PLD 1991 Karachi 335: Sindh High Court judgment on the exemption for followers of Fiqh Hanafi. PLD 1999 SC 476: Supreme Court ruling on the deduction of Zakat at source and exemptions for different Fiqhs.

Summary: Background: A petition was filed challenging the constitutionality of Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance XIII of 1983. The petition argued that this section was repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The petitioners contended that the restriction limiting the application of Islamic law to male heirs who acquired agricultural land under customary law before March 16, 1948, was un-Islamic. The petitioners sought an amendment to the law to ensure that Islamic principles of inheritance would apply without any limitations. -----Issues: 1- Is Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance XIII of 1983 repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah? 2- Should Section 2-A be amended to remove any restrictions on the application of Islamic law in matters of inheritance? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of Section 2-A. The court reasoned that Section 2-A was a necessary legal provision to prevent societal chaos by avoiding the reopening of past transactions settled under customary law. The section was deemed to be consistent with the gradual process of Islamizing the legal framework in Pakistan, aligning customary practices with Islamic principles while ensuring societal stability. The court emphasized that while the law did not validate customs contrary to Islamic injunctions, it provided a strategic approach to maintain order in society. The petitioners were advised to seek personal relief from the appropriate legal forum if they wished to pursue their inheritance claims under Islamic law. The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1983 S.C 273 1988 SCMR 8 PLD 1985 SC 407 1988 SCMR 293 PLD 1990 SC 982 2004 CLC 1652 PLD 1990 SC 1 1995 SCMR 868 (Zainab Bibi's Case) 1997 CLC 659 (Mohib Shah's Case) PLD 1999 SC 476