Summary: Bail denied --- The document pertains to a bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C., where the petitioner seeks relief from arrest for an offense under Section 377 PPC. The petitioner was accused of committing an unnatural offense with the complainant's 10-year-old son. The petitioner's counsel argued innocence, citing false implication and lack of supporting evidence. The prosecution counters, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The court dismissed the bail application, noting the occurrence's sensitivity. Additionally, the document highlighted the importance of DNA evidence in sexual assault cases and addresses lapses in evidence collection procedures, directing authorities to adhere to guidelines for better forensic practices.

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) -------Ss. 372, 373 & 295---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 85 & 128---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Succession certificate, issuance of---Public document---Presumption of truth---Legitimacy of a child---Proof---DNA test, conducting of---Respondents being sisters of deceased filed application for conducting DNA test of minor son of deceased with the contention that he was adopted son and was not entitled for inheritance---Petition for conducting DNA test and objections were dismissed and succession certificate was issued in favour of petitioners---Validity---Documents produced on behalf of petitioners were official which had not been disputed by the respondents---Respondents should have sought declaration and cancellation of said documents before raising objections to the legal status of minor after death of his mother---Legitimacy of a child or his status as son of deceased could not be disproved by any oral evidence as against documentary evidence from official record which was a public document---Civil Court in presence of documentary evidence could not hold that the child was not born from the marriage of the parties---Father, in the present case, had not challenged that deceased was not mother of the minor son---Respondents had failed to challenge or rebut the evidence of official record of National Database and Registration Authority and other evidence before the Trial Court---DNA test could not be a sole proof of paternity of a child---Trial Court had rightly refused request of respondents for conducting DNA test, in circumstances---Respondents had made a frivolous challenge to the paternity of a child to deprive him from inheritances---Appeal was dismissed in, circumstances. 2012 YLR 1752 distinguished. Mst. Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum and others PLD 2019 SC 449; Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 203 and Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Ghulam Dastagir Khan PLD 2015 SC 327 rel.

Summary: Acquittal granted---The case involved a complaint filed who alleged that his niece, was abducted, leading to ransom demands. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- for her release, but she was not found at the designated location. Further ransom demands were made, and eventually, Rabia Bibi was recovered from the accused, Tanveer, with the help of Rakhshanda, a former housemaid. The accused were charged with offenses including abduction, rape, and extortion. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence, including witness testimonies, medical evidence, and DNA testing. The court, however, found inconsistencies in the evidence presented and raised doubts about the credibility of the complainant and Rabia Bibi. The court also questioned the reliability of the DNA evidence and the handling of call data records. As a result, Shahid Nawaz and Altaf Hussain were acquitted, while Tanveer and Rakhshanda were convicted.

Summary: Background:Fawad Qayum filed a suit against Mst. Laila Qayum, alleging that Laila was adopted by his parents and concealed from her the fact of her adoption.Fawad sought declarations that Laila was not the real daughter of his parents and had no right to their legacy.The suit also sought cancellation of documents showing Laila as the daughter of Fawad's parents.---Issues:Whether Fawad had the legal standing to seek the declarations and cancellation of documents.Whether the suit was maintainable under the Specific Relief Act and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.Whether a DNA test should be allowed to determine Laila's paternity.Whether the court had the authority to dismiss the suit and award costs.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that Fawad lacked the legal standing to seek the declarations and cancellation of documents as it did not involve his own legal character or property rights.The suit was found to be not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act and Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.The court refused to allow a DNA test, citing concerns about privacy and the inability to confirm or negate paternity conclusively due to the passage of time.Utilizing its ancillary powers under Article 187 of the Constitution, the court dismissed the suit and awarded costs to the petitioner, considering it frivolous and potentially depriving Laila of her inheritance.---Citations/Precedents:Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Ghulam Dastagir Khan (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 327)Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203)Muhammad Shahid Sahil v. State (PLD 2015 FSC 215)B. P. Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2851)Rehmatullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2003 SCMR 50)Daw Pone v. Ma Hnin May (AIR 1941 Rangoon 220)Abdul Karim v. Sarraya Begum (AIR 1945 Lahore 266)---Quote:The plaintiff seeks a negative declaration and one which has nothing to do with his own legal character. To challenge another's adoption or legitimacy of birth does not assert the plaintiff's own legal character. The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.

Summary: -----1. Denial of Paternity and DNA Testing: ---Facts of the Case: The petitioner contested the legitimacy of a minor, born 6.5 months after the dissolution of his marriage with respondent No. 3. He sought a DNA test to refute paternity. The Trial and Appellate Courts denied this request. ---Legal Context: Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, provides that a child born during a valid marriage or within two years after its dissolution is conclusive proof of legitimacy, subject to limited exceptions. -----2. Conclusive Proof of Legitimacy: ---Statutory Protection: Article 128 strengthens societal stability by affirming the legitimacy of children born during a valid marriage or within the prescribed timeframe after its dissolution, even if scientific evidence could suggest otherwise. ---Judicial Precedents: Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Mehr Ghulam Dastagir Khan (PLD 2015 SC 327): Societal and familial harmony take precedence over individual assertions of paternity. Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayyum (PLD 2019 SC 449): A DNA test cannot be compelled as it violates the dignity and liberty enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. -----3. Time Frame for Denying Paternity Under Islamic Law: ---Muslim Personal Law (Shariat): Under Islamic jurisprudence, denial of paternity must occur immediately after the child’s birth or within the postpartum period (40 days). Delayed denial is invalid. ---Petitioner’s Case: The petitioner first denied paternity nearly three years after the child’s birth in his written statement, rendering the claim invalid under Shariat principles. -----4. Judicial Observations on DNA Testing: ---Ethical Considerations: Requests for DNA tests in maintenance suits often aim to evade financial responsibilities rather than presenting genuine claims. ---Impact on Children: Challenges to paternity harm a child’s sense of identity and emotional well-being, potentially causing long-term psychological effects. ---Legal Position: DNA testing cannot become a routine tool to dispute paternity, as it risks being misused to harass or delay child maintenance proceedings. -----5. Court’s Findings and Ruling: ---Dismissal of Application: The Trial and Appellate Courts appropriately rejected the petitioner’s application for DNA testing, citing insufficient grounds. ---Denial of Relief: The petitioner failed to establish valid legal or factual reasons for overturning the lower courts’ decisions. -----6. Disposition: ---Petition Dismissed: The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, affirming the legitimacy of the child and rejecting the DNA test request. No order as to costs was passed.

Summary: DNA report---importance--The petitioner alleged that she was deprived of her rightful share of inheritance from the land. After conducting a full-fledged trial, the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. The respondents, however, appealed this decision and, during the appeal process, one of the respondents, Riyasat Ali, filed an application for a DNA test involving the petitioner and three others, excluding himself. The petitioner contested this DNA test application, arguing that it was illegal and that DNA tests should not supersede direct evidence provided by the parties. The petitioner also highlighted that the application for a DNA test had not been made during the trial but only during the appeal. The court, after hearing both sides, concluded that parties should prove their cases with their own evidence and that resorting to DNA tests should not be used to create indirect evidence when direct evidence is available. The court also noted the irregularity in not obtaining consent from all parties involved in the DNA testing. Consequently, the court allowed the civil revision, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the application for the DNA test. No costs were awarded.

Summary: The background of the case is that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married in 1988 with certain financial arrangements, and they had a child named Muhammad Umair Tayyab. However, their relationship deteriorated, and respondent No.2 contracted a second marriage. The petitioner had previously filed various legal actions, including a suit for maintenance allowance and dowry articles, as well as appeals and writ petitions related to these matters. The main point of contention in this document is whether a DNA test is necessary to determine the parentage of Muhammad Umair Tayyab, who is now over 18 years old. The document cited relevant legal provisions, including Section 128 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which deals with the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage. The document also references previous legal cases and their implications for the use of DNA tests in such situations. Ultimately, the document concluded by allowing the writ petition, setting aside the order for a DNA test, and directing the parties to continue their case before the learned Judge Family Court, where it is still pending.

Summary: Issue:Whether a DNA test should be allowed to contest paternity of children born within a valid marriage, in light of Pakistani law and Islamic jurisprudence.Holding:The Supreme Court held that the request for a DNA test to establish non-paternity was not permissible under Pakistani law and Islamic jurisprudence, particularly given the timing of the denial and the societal implications of such disputes.Reasoning:The Court emphasized the protection of societal cohesion and the dignity of women and children. It referred to Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, which stipulates that a child born within a valid marriage is presumed legitimate, and the denial of paternity must be immediate post-birth to be considered under Islamic law. The Court also noted the lack of immediate denial of paternity by the respondent, rendering his subsequent claims invalid. The judgment underscored that legal and societal norms prioritize the protection of the family unit and the integrity of children born within a marriage.Key Citations and Precedents:Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order: Establishes the presumption of legitimacy for children born within a valid marriage.Section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962: Stipulates that Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) governs issues of legitimacy and bastardy among Muslims.References to Islamic jurisprudence, particularly the works of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Muhammad, and Imam Yousaf, regarding the denial of paternity.The case of Muhammad Shahid Sahil Vs. The State (PLD 2010 FSC 215) was distinguished as it pertained to a criminal case involving rape, not applicable to the civil context of paternity within a marriage.Conclusion:The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the respondent's suit and the request for a DNA test, emphasizing the legal and societal importance of protecting the legitimacy of children born within a marriage. The judgment reinforces the legal framework that prioritizes family integrity and the protection of children's rights in paternity disputes.

Summary: The case involved a petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case. The murder victim, was found dead under suspicious circumstances at a rice mill. The petitioner was not initially named in the FIR but was later implicated based on supplementary statements and the results of a Polygraph Test. The petitioner's counsel argued that the case is based on suspicion, and there is no concrete evidence linking him to the crime. They also question the reliability of the Polygraph Test and the violation of constitutional rights. On the other hand, the complainant's counsel contended that the petitioner's extraordinary confession and the autopsy report support the murder accusation. The court noted that the case involved a blind murder, and the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR. The timing of the supplementary statements, Polygraph Test, and DNA Test raises questions about the petitioner's involvement. The DNA test results do not conclusively match the petitioner's profile with the deceased's clothing, and the Polygraph Test results are inconclusive. Ultimately, the court appeared to express skepticism about relying on the Polygraph Test and highlighted the need for further inquiry into the case. It implied that the petitioner may be entitled to post-arrest bail due to the lack of substantial evidence linking him to the crime.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376(iii) ----Rape of minor girl aged 10 years—Conviction based on confidence-inspiring testimony of victim—Victim, a 10-year-old school student, unequivocally identified the accused, a school sweeper, as the perpetrator of rape—Her statement was recorded after assessment of her competency under Art. 3 read with Art. 17 of QSO, 1984—Court found her narrative natural, consistent, and trustworthy—Held, sole testimony of victim in rape cases, especially of child sexual assault, is sufficient for conviction if credible—Victim’s version supported by medical evidence indicating recent vaginal trauma—Prosecution successfully proved case beyond doubt. (b) Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, S. 18(1) & (2) ----Trial and confirmation of sentence—Appeal filed under S.18(1) of the Act, and death sentence reference submitted under S.18(2)—Held, trial court correctly applied law; sentence awarded was in line with statutory mandate under S. 376(iii), PPC for rape of a child under 12. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173, 342, 382-B ----Investigative and trial procedure—Appellant arrested on same day as FIR—DNA sampling done—Though DNA did not yield positive result, medical and ocular evidence was deemed sufficient—Appellant neither appeared under S. 340(2) nor produced defence evidence—Confession before police not relied upon—Trial Court awarded death and fine, with compensation under S. 17 of the Anti-Rape Act—Appellant was granted benefit under S. 382-B for time already served. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 3, 17 ----Competency of child witness—Victim assessed for intelligence and ability to comprehend—Trial court rightly concluded she was competent to testify—Held, child’s testimony in sexual assault cases is admissible if it meets standards of coherence and credibility—No indication of tutoring found. (e) Delay in Lodging FIR—Effect in Rape Cases ----Two-day delay in reporting rape—Courts held delay immaterial due to social stigma, fear, and vulnerability, especially for victims from modest backgrounds—Cited Mehboob Ahmad v. The State (1999 SCMR 1102), Zahid v. The State (2020 SCMR 590), and Zahid v. The State (2022 SCMR 50)—Held, in rape cases involving child victims, delay cannot override substantive evidence where circumstances justify the delay. (f) Forensic and Medical Evidence—DNA and Potency Testing ----No semen detected in DNA analysis—Held, negative DNA not fatal where medical and ocular evidence clearly establish offence—Medical report showed abrasions on breasts and fresh vaginal injuries consistent with rape—Delay of two days in MLC explained absence of semen—Appellant found potent—Reliance placed on Abdul Ghani v. The State (2022 SCMR 544). (g) Rape Trials—Absence of Eyewitnesses—Effect ----Held, absence of eyewitness not material in rape offences committed in secrecy—Victim’s account can be sufficient—Court referred to Shakeel v. The State (PLD 2010 SC 47), Habib Ullah v. The State (2011 SCMR 1665) -------- Disposition: Capital Sentence Reference No.08-ARA-2022 is answered in affirmative and death sentence awarded to appellant is confirmed.