Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan, exercising its original jurisdiction, took suo moto action regarding combating the COVID-19 pandemic.Representatives from various government departments and provinces attended the hearing, along with legal counsel.The hearing focused on the steps taken by the respective governments to address the pandemic, including provision of medical facilities, distribution of funds, and operation of industrial units.---Issues:Evaluation of measures taken by the governments to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.Examination of reports submitted by government departments and provinces regarding distribution of funds, provision of medical facilities, and operation of industrial units.Assessment of compliance with labor laws and safety standards in factories, particularly in Karachi.Review of grievances raised by lawyers regarding access to testing facilities and medical assistance.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Acknowledged efforts of healthcare workers and government officials in addressing the pandemic.Emphasized the need for transparency in the distribution of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds.Sought opinions from Islamic scholars regarding the utilization of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds.Directed governments to ensure compliance with labor laws and safety standards in factories.Noted reports from various government departments and provinces and adjourned the hearing for further submissions.---Citations/Precedents:Factories Act, 1934

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)- -Ss. 272, 269, 299, 300 & 384-Appeal-Probate, grant of-Ownerless property-Application for grant of probate under S.272 Succession Act, 1925, was filed by appellant but Trial Court dismissed the application-Validity-Once it was found that none was available to claim ownership of immovable property in question in his own right or by way of inheritance, such property should be treated as an ownerless property-Once Court was satisfied that the property was rendered ownerless, it was the duty of Court to protect it from being misappropriated or wasted or damaged-Court could appoint Curator under S.195 of Succession Act, 1925, to takeover possession of the property pending final determination of fate of proceedings-Court could have also taken prompt action under S.269 of Succession Act, 1925, for protection of such property-Jurisdiction of High Court under S.300 of Succession Act, 1925, was concurrent with District Judge in exercise of power under Succession Act, 1925-High Court appointed its official as a Curator to protect the property in question and directed him to take over the possession immediately-High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court-Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. 1993 CLC 1552 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of abouttwo hours and fifteen minutes in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged forcommitting murder of his wife inside his matrimonial home---Motive behind the occurrencewas stated to be strained relationship between the spouses---Record showed that theoccurrence had taken place during a night in the month of May, inside the house of accused,which remained unwitnessed---Accused, who happened to be the son-in-law of complainant,along with co-accused had been nominated in the FIR on the basis of suspicion---Place ofoccurrence was at a distance of about three kilometres from Levies Thana---FIR in respect ofthe incident in question had been lodged after about two hours and 15 minutes---Possibilityregarding deliberation and cooking-up a false story could not be ruled out of consideration,in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation ofevidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessional statement of accused---Infirmities---Accused wascharged for committing murder of his wife inside his matrimonial home---Motive behind theoccurrence was stated to be strained relationship between the spouses---Bare perusal ofconfessional statement revealed that it was made on oath---Confession should be recorded inthe manner provided for statement of an accused and not in the manner provided forrecording evidence---If confessional statement was recorded in the manner provided forrecording evidence by administering oath then it would loose its character insofar the makerwas concerned---Fact of administering oath at the recording of confession virtually meantthat the maker was compelled to give evidence against him, placing him in the status of awitness at the stage of investigation in violation of Art.13(b) of the Constitution read with S.5 of the Oaths Act, 1873---Administering oath in recording confession would mean therecording of evidence of the maker for use in subsequent stage against the maker which wasprohibited under the law---Proceedings of recording of the judicial confession deposed by the Judicial Magistrate also showed that it had never been mentioned in those proceedings thatbefore recording the confession the handcuffs of the accused had been removed or for anytime reflection was provided---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed toprove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.Muhammad Bakhsh v. The State PLD 1956 SC (Pak) 420; Azeem Khan v. MujahidKhan and others 2016 SCMR 274 and Manzur v. The State PLD 1973 Lah. 714 rel.(c) Criminal trial------Confession----Confessional statement, retraction of---Scope---In absence of independentcorroboration, retracted judicial confession could not suffice by itself for recording orupholding the conviction.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessionalstatement of accused and medical evidence---Contradictions---Effect---Accused was chargedfor committing murder of his wife inside his matrimonial home---Medical evidence furnishedby Lady Police Surgeon was contrary to the alleged confession as well as prosecution case---Said witness deposed that on 29-5-2019, dead body was brought by Tehsildar and she afterconducting post-mortem prepared her report---Said report showed that the cause of deathwould be given after receiving the chemical analysis report---Report of Chemical Analysiswas only to the effect that no drug/poisons were detected in blood, liver and stomachcontents---In such view of the matter, there was no occasion with the said witness to opinethat the cause of death was due to asphyxia, smoothling and homicidal in manner---Appealagainst conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(e) Criminal trial-------Witness---Reliance---Scope---Reliance upon evidence of witnesses disbelieved to theextent of co-accused---If a set of witnesses was disbelieved to the extent of some accused,the same could not be believed in respect of remaining accused facing the same trial withoutthere being any independent and strong corroboration.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Wife dying an unnatural death in the house of husband---Presumption---Burden of proof---Prosecution was bound to prove its case against accused(husband) beyond reasonable doubt at all stages of a criminal case---In a case where theprosecution asserted presence of some eye-witnesses and such claim of the prosecution wasnot established by it then the accused person could not be convicted merely on the basis of apresumption that since the murder of his wife had taken place in his house, therefore, it mustbe he and none else who would have committed that murder. Abdul Majeed v. The State 2011 SCMR 941 and Nasrullah v. The State 2017 SCMR724 rel.

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:The petitioner, Irfan Ali Sher, was charged under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old minor girl on September 15, 2014. The FIR was lodged on September 16, 2014, and the petitioner was convicted for rape under section 376 PPC by the trial court. He was sentenced to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. On appeal to the Lahore High Court, his sentence was reduced to ten years.---Issues:Whether the delay in reporting the sexual assault to the police affects the credibility of the victim's testimony.Whether the failure to obtain a DNA forensic report or the victim's clothes affects the prosecution's case.Whether the investigation conducted by a male police officer instead of a female officer impacts the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the delay in reporting the assault does not necessarily undermine the credibility of the victim's testimony, considering the trauma victims may experience. Past cases have established that such delays do not materially affect the case.The absence of a DNA forensic report or the victim's clothes does not invalidate the prosecution's case, especially when medical examination findings corroborate the victim's testimony. The court emphasized that obtaining a DNA report is not mandatory under the law.Despite the investigation being conducted by a male police officer instead of a female officer, the failure to obtain the victim's clothes was noted as a procedural shortcoming. However, this did not materially affect the case's outcome, given the substantial evidence supporting the prosecution's case.The court also highlighted the leniency shown by the trial court and the High Court in sentencing the petitioner, considering the minimum punishment prescribed by law for the offense.As no grounds for leave to appeal were established, the petition was dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court.---Citations/Precedents:Yasmin Butt v Majid Baig (2008 SCMR 1602)The State v Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554)Zahid v State (unreported judgment dated 3rd March 2020 in Jail Petition No. 712/2018)