Summary: Summary pending

Summary: A witness who tries to improve his initial version by introducing himself as eyewitness of the occurrence at a belated stage can`t be termed as a trustworthy witness.

Summary: Section of Law; 302, 324, 147, 148, 149 PPC (a) Conviction on a capital charge may not solely be based upon narration of facts given by an accused while lodging first report of the occurrence and contents of such an FIR cannot be used against him unless same are owned or proved during the course of trial.

Summary: (a) Higher Education Commission Ordinance (LIII of 2002)-------Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.4---Equivalence of Ph.D degree---Degree wasawarded to the Assistant professor of University through distance and online learningprogram from a foreign university under the scholarship granted by the University---Requestof the petitioner (Assistant Professor) for equavelance of her Ph.D was refused on the groundthat degree-in-question was not awarded to the petitioner by any of the chartered universitiesand that the petitioner had taken contradictory stance in her application form submittedbefore the respondent-HEC---Plea of the petitioner was that no objection was raisedthroughout the whole process of getting Ph.D degree---Validity---Record revealed thatrespondent-HEC had sought information from respondent-University during scrutiny of theapplication submitted by the petitioner before HEC and the respondent-university replied thatchange of foreign university by the petitioner was not known/intimated to them---OverseasScholarship Committee of the University, in the present case, had decided releasing ofscholarship amount subject to submission of reply from the HEC, however, such reply wasnot available on record on the basis of which (reply) the Committee approved the scholarshipamount---Record was also silent about change of study from one university to the other oneby the university-respondent---Even the petitioner had not attached her complete documentswhile submitting application for equivalence of her Ph.D degree---High Court set aside theimpugned letter refusing the request of (the petitioner) for equivalence of her Ph.D degreeand directed the respondents to pass speaking order strictly after examining the record aswell as hearing all concerned including the petitioner---Constitutional petition was disposedof accordingly.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.4---Equality of citizen---It is inalienable right of every citizen to be treated inaccordance with law as envisaged by Art.4 of the Constitution---It is the duty and obligationof every public functionary to act within the four corners of the mandate of the Constitution

Summary: (Reduction in Sentence, Conviction Upheld)--The appellants, Qaisar Mehmood and Muhammad Shaban, were convicted of the rape and murder of a 3 ?-year-old girl, Ramsha. The incident occurred on May 13, 2003, near Qazafi Park in the jurisdiction of Police Station City Muridke. Ramsha, the victim, was the daughter of a street vendor named Hafeez Ullah (PW-3).The prosecution's case was built on a chain of circumstances, including witness testimonies, autopsy findings, forensic evidence, and recoveries of bloodstained articles from the room occupied by the appellants in a nearby factory where they worked. The evidence showed that the appellants were last seen with the child before her disappearance and later disposing of her body concealed in a gunny bag. The autopsy report confirmed brutal injuries and sexual assault leading to the child's death.The appellants contested the charges and attempted to shift blame onto another individual, Ansar, who was a relative of the factory owner. They claimed that the police officer, Ishtiaq Ahmad, manipulated the case to save Ansar and framed the appellants as scapegoats.The trial court convicted both appellants under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the convictions but converted the death penalty to imprisonment for life with compensation.The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the evidence of last seen, extrajudicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence. It concluded that the chain of circumstances overwhelmingly pointed to the appellants' guilt, and there was no basis to entertain any other hypothesis.The Court observed that the crime was particularly heinous, considering the extreme tender age of the victim, and the appellants' conduct warranted severe punishment. However, the Court found that one of the appellants, Qaisar Mehmood, was a minor at the time of the crime, leading to the reduction of his death penalty to life imprisonment.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for Qaisar Mehmood, with the death penalty commuted to life imprisonment, while the convictions and sentences for Muhammad Shaban were maintained.

Summary: The petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob was accused in a crime that occurred on 20th March 1992 within the precincts of Police Station Ahmed Pur, District Khairpur. Two members of a police contingent guarding the Taravih prayers at Jamea Mosque Mehaisar Wadda were martyred in the line of duty during an attempted abduction of worshipers by 12 assailants. The assailants, including the petitioner, were armed and resisted by the contingent, leading to the deaths of the police constables.The petitioner was specifically named in the crime report and was arrested after almost a quarter of a century. He claimed trial and was convicted of homicide under section 302 (b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life by a judgment dated 30th January 2017, which was upheld by the Federal Shariat Court in the impugned judgment dated 8th February 2019.The petitioner challenged the judgment on various grounds, including questions of identity during dark hours, lack of evidence connecting him to any specific shot, and the prosecution's failure to recover the weapon of offense or the official weapons taken during the incident. The petitioner argued that he was wrongly implicated after an exasperating length of time.The court carefully examined the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses and found that the witnesses unanimously pointed to the petitioner's active participation in the occurrence. The witnesses confidently recollected the incident, and their testimonies were consistent despite the considerable time that had passed. The court rejected the argument that darkness provided immunity to the offender, as the presence of electric lights at the mosque allowed for the identification of the assailants mentioned in the crime report.The court concluded that the totality of circumstances pointed to the petitioner's guilt, and there was no reason to take a different view from the courts below. The petition was, therefore, dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Issue:The determination of seniority between the appellants (promotees) and the respondents (direct appointees) in the same grade.----Holding:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, holding that the appellants (except for one who was promoted later) should be considered senior to the respondents, re-fixing their seniority above the respondents.----Reasoning:The Court examined the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, particularly focusing on the provisions relating to the determination of seniority among civil servants.It was determined that the appellants, recommended for promotion in the same Departmental Promotion Committee, constituted a "batch" or "group of persons," thereby their seniority should be based on the date the first member of the batch was promoted.The Court found that since the first appellant was promoted on 02.12.2003, the other appellants should be considered to have been promoted on the same date, and thus, should be senior to the respondents who were appointed on 03.12.2003.However, one appellant, who was promoted at a later date due to being deferred in the initial DPC and considered in a subsequent DPC, was not included in the batch and her seniority was to be determined based on her actual promotion date.----Key Quotes:"If civil servants are selected for promotion in a 'batch' or as a 'group of persons' then the date of promotion of all the persons in the batch or the group shall be the date when anyone of them was first promoted to the post and they shall retain their inter se seniority.""The respondents were appointed through initial appointment on 03.12.2003, a day after the promotion of the first promottee out of the batch of promotes, hence the respondents will fall under the appellants."

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4(2) & 11(b)---Women’s right to inheritance---Widow’s entitlement to property of deceased husband---Where complainant proved her status as lawful widow of the deceased and CDA record continued to reflect the deceased as owner of the disputed shop, deprivation of her share by step-sons constituted unlawful denial of property rights—Held, complainant entitled to restoration of ownership and possession of her share under the Act. (b) Inquiry and verification of ownership ----S. 4(2)---Deputy Commissioner’s inquiry---Verification of property ownership and share determination---Upon referral, DC Islamabad conducted inquiry confirming that the complainant was the second wife and legal heir of the deceased co-owner, and that her step-sons had unlawfully withheld possession—Inquiry findings binding for enforcement purposes. (c) Illegal deprivation and remedial jurisdiction ----S. 5 & 11(b)---Ombudsman’s powers to enforce women’s property rights—Ombudsman competent to direct Deputy Commissioner to restore and confer possession, ensure transfer of title, and take all ancillary measures for perfecting ownership in complainant’s name—Purpose of the statute is to provide speedy restitution of property to women wrongfully deprived thereof. (d) Admission by respondents ----Effect---Where respondents in written defence admitted the deceased’s ownership and complainant’s status as widow, such admission further corroborated the complainant’s legal entitlement—Denial of possession held mala fide. (e) Disposition — Complaint allowed. It was declared that complainant, being lawful widow of deceased Muhammad Yousaf Khan Abbasi, is entitled to her legal share in shop No.133, Section I-11/4, Sabzi Mandi, Bara Kahu, Islamabad. Deputy Commissioner Islamabad directed to restore possession and confer title to the complainant, take necessary measures to perfect ownership, and submit compliance report upon execution.