Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 and Section 7(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for committing zina-bil-jabr (rape) on a 3-year-old girl. The complainant, the victim’s father, lodged an FIR after finding his daughter in a critical condition. The victim later identified the appellant as the culprit. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the victim, her parents, and other corroborative evidence, sentencing him to 15 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the case was fabricated due to personal enmity, that the extra-judicial confession was weak, and that a DNA report exonerated him. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of zina-bil-jabr against the appellant. 2- Whether the extra-judicial confession and testimony of witnesses were credible. 3- Whether the DNA report, presented at a later stage, could invalidate the conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim’s testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and statements from the victim’s parents, was deemed reliable and consistent. The extra-judicial confession was supported by corroborative evidence and was not discredited during cross-examination. The DNA report, received after the trial, was questioned for its delay and handling. It did not conclusively exonerate the appellant, and the court emphasized that DNA was not the primary evidence in this case. The court found no enmity between the parties that could explain a false accusation. Given the heinous nature of the crime, the court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2006 SC 538 – Extra-judicial confessions must be of a high and unimpeachable character. PLD 2006 Lahore 207 – Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and cannot sustain a conviction without strong corroboration. PLD 2005 Lahore 589 – DNA test utility and limitations in Hudood Laws, emphasizing reliance on other forms of evidence. 2011 PCrLJ 1443 – Prosecution is not bound to produce all witnesses, and even if DNA evidence does not match, other corroborating evidence can uphold a conviction.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted by the trial court for murder and robbery under Section 302(b), Section 392/34 PPC, and Section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The incident involved two armed assailants who allegedly robbed the complainant’s motorcycle and mobile phone, and one of the accused shot the complainant's friend, resulting in his death. The appellants challenged their conviction, arguing that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, the identification parade was flawed, and no incriminating evidence like the stolen items or weapons were recovered from them. -----Issues: 1- Whether the identification of the appellants was reliable. 2- Whether the prosecution proved the charges of murder and robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. 3- Whether the non-recovery of incriminating articles and absence of neutral witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the identification parade was not conducted according to the prescribed rules and raised doubts due to the absence of details regarding the dummies in the parade. The court also held that failure to put the identification parade as an incriminating piece of evidence before the accused during their examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. prejudiced the defense. The court observed that the arrest of the appellants appeared to be suspicious since a Habeas corpus petition had been filed before their alleged arrest, raising doubts about their actual custody date. No incriminating articles, such as the robbed motorcycle, mobile phone, or weapon, were recovered, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The prosecution failed to produce any neutral witnesses from the locality, despite the incident taking place in a public market during daylight. Due to these significant doubts, the court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants. -----Citations/Precedents: 2012 P.Cr.LJ 800 – Failure to ask questions regarding the identification parade in the examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. prejudices the accused and makes the identification inadmissible as evidence. Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Prosecution is not obliged to conduct an identification parade, but if conducted, it must follow proper procedures.

Summary: Background: The appellants were charged under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib. The incident involved two minor girls, Mst. Allah Mafi and Mst. Uzma Bibi, both aged around 10-11 years, who were allegedly abducted and subjected to rape by the appellants. The girls worked as apprentices in a carpet factory where the appellants were trainers. The trial court acquitted the appellants of abduction charges but convicted them for zina (rape). ----Issues: 1- Was there a delay in reporting the alleged zina (rape)? 2- Was the acquittal of abduction charges sufficient to dismiss the charge of zina? 3- Was there sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants committed zina with the victims? 4- Did the absence of a site plan and other procedural flaws affect the credibility of the case? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --No Delay in Reporting: The court found that the delay in reporting the zina was not unreasonable. The victims were initially reported missing, and the offense of zina was added after their recovery. --Acquittal of Abduction: The court held that the acquittal of abduction charges did not necessarily mean the appellants were innocent of zina. The fact that the girls were minors (under 16 years of age) and had not reached puberty made them incapable of consenting, and the appellants were much older. --Sufficient Evidence for Zina: The court concluded that the medical evidence, victim testimony, and the chemical examiner’s report corroborated the rape allegations. The defense did not challenge this evidence, nor did it provide any justification for why the victims would falsely implicate the appellants. The appellants' argument that they were not present at the time of the abduction did not absolve them of guilt, as the evidence of rape remained unchallenged. --Procedural Flaws: The absence of a site plan and other minor procedural flaws did not negate the substantive evidence of rape. The court noted that the medical and testimonial evidence was sufficient to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court upheld the trial court’s conviction of the appellants under Section 10 of the Hudood Ordinance, sentencing them to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in future judgments. ----Citations/Precedents: Abdul Rasheed Munshi and others v. The State, PLD 1967 SC 498 Ashiq Hussain and another v. The State, 2003 SCMR 698 Abdul Sattar v. Sher Amjad, 2004 YLR 580 Sahab Khan and others v. The State, 1997 SCMR 871

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted for charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sections 377, 384, 148, 149, and 292 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. The case involved allegations of gang rape, sodomy, and blackmail of the victim. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to death and life imprisonment. The trial court also made a criminal reference to confirm the death sentence. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the delay in filing the FIR weakened the prosecution’s case. 3- Whether the reliance on photographs as evidence was justified without the negatives and original copies. 4- Whether the contradictions in the prosecution’s story, as evidenced by two separate FIRs, affected the credibility of the case. 5- Whether the evidence presented against the appellants was sufficient to sustain the conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Lack of Evidence: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The contradictions in the two FIRs, the absence of original photographs and negatives, and the lack of reliable witness testimony created serious doubts about the prosecution's case. --Delay in FIR: The court found the delay of 15 months in filing the FIR to be unjustified and concluded that the delay raised doubts about the authenticity of the case. This delay also allowed time for fabrication of evidence. --Unreliable Witnesses: The primary eyewitness was deemed unreliable as he was a chance witness and his presence at the crime scene could not be corroborated. Additionally, one of the key witnesses was given up by the prosecution. --Photographic Evidence: The court determined that the photographic evidence was not reliable due to the absence of the negatives and the potential for manipulation of the photos. The court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences, and dismissed the reference for confirmation of the death sentence. ----Citations/Precedents: 2010 SCMR 1706 (Muhammad Asghar v. The State) 2011 SCMR 45 (Mushtaq Hussam v. The State) 2011 SCMR 208 (Abid Ali v. The State) 1996 SCMR 176 (Abdul Rehman v. Fateh Sher) 1972 SCMR 651 (Sher Bahadur v. The State) 2003 SCMR 647 (Mst. Mumtaz Begum v. Ghulam Farid etc.) PLD 2011 SC 554 (The State v. Abdul Khaliq) 2006 SCMR 1846 (Lal Khan v. The State) 2001 SCMR 25 (Allah Wadhayo v. The State)

Summary: Background: The case involves an individual who was convicted by the trial court for committing rape on three occasions against their own daughter. The victim initially remained silent about the incidents to preserve the family's honor. However, after enduring repeated assaults, the victim finally reported the matter to the police. Medical examinations and DNA tests were conducted as part of the investigation, and the trial court sentenced the individual to death under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The conviction was challenged in appeal before the Federal Shariat Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the defense’s claim of an affair involving the victim was credible. 3- Whether the delay in reporting the crime affected the credibility of the case. 4- Whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Prosecution Evidence: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court's conviction, finding that the prosecution had provided clear and convincing evidence, including the consistent testimony of the victim, corroborated by her mother, medical evidence, and forensic reports. --Defense's Argument: The court dismissed the defense’s argument that the victim had an illicit relationship and concocted the story to cover it up. This claim was unsupported by any evidence and failed to create any doubt in the case. --Delay in FIR: The court accepted the explanation for the delay in reporting the incident, noting that the victim had initially remained silent to protect family honor. Given the sensitivity of the situation, the delay did not undermine the prosecution’s case. --Sentencing: The court affirmed the death sentence, citing the grave nature of the offense. The crime of incestuous rape was deemed particularly heinous, as the individual had violated the trust of their own child, and such an offense deserved the maximum punishment under the law. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1967 SC 498 2003 SCMR 698 2004 YLR 580 1997 SCMR 871

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, was convicted by the District and Sessions Judge, Kohlu, under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for robbing a motorcycle and a binocular from the complainant, Yar Muhammad, while the complainant was hunting. The appellant was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, with an additional three months imprisonment if the fine was not paid. The appellant filed this appeal against the conviction. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction of the appellant was based on reliable evidence. 2- Whether the discrepancies in witness statements and procedural errors affected the validity of the conviction. 3- Whether the recovery of the motorcycle from a co-accused's house was sufficient to convict the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Contradictions in Witness Statements: The court noted significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including contradictions between the FIR and trial testimonies. Initially, the complainant mentioned the names of the accused as Sohrab Khan and Khan Gul, but during the trial, the name Khan Gul was substituted with Muhammad Din. Additionally, the complainant's statement about Sohrab Khan being unarmed in the FIR conflicted with his trial testimony where he claimed Sohrab had a gun. --Recovery of Motorcycle: The recovery of the motorcycle from a co-accused's house, not from the appellant’s possession, was deemed unreliable. The court highlighted that recovery based on an extra-judicial confession made during police custody has no legal standing unless corroborated by strong evidence. --Ocular Testimony and Identification Issues: The court found that the identification of Sohrab Khan by the complainant’s son (P.W.2) was unreliable, as P.W.2 was one kilometer away from the incident when it occurred. The court also found the testimonies of the witnesses inconsistent and not credible enough to support the conviction. --Delay in FIR Registration: The FIR was registered six days after the incident, which raised doubts about the investigation. While the delay was attributed to the police, the court held that it affected the case's credibility. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of Sohrab Khan were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges. His bail bond was discharged, and the sureties were released. ----Citations/Precedents: 2010 SCMR 164 2011 SCMR 563 2012 SCMR 440 2010 SCMR 1604

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending