Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background:The appellants, Ehsanullah, Touqeer Ahmad, and Jabir Khan, were convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court Gilgit-Baltistan on 20-02-2017. Ehsanullah was sentenced to death under Section 302(b) PPC and Sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997, while Touqeer Ahmad and Jabir Khan were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300,000 each. The convictions stemmed from the murder of Toufeer Abbas Paal on 16-12-2013. The appellants filed appeals under Section 410 Cr.PC against their convictions, and a murder reference was also forwarded for Ehsanullah's death sentence.----Issues:Whether the confessional statements of the appellants are admissible and sufficient for conviction.Whether the circumstantial evidence supports the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether the trial court's judgment was legally justified based on the evidence presented.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court partially dismissed the appeal, reasoning that:The confessional statements of the appellants recorded under Section 21-H ATA 1997 by SSP Gilgit were found to be voluntary and corroborated by the recovery of weapons and other evidence.The medical evidence and forensic reports supported the prosecution's case, establishing the cause of death and linking the weapons to the crime.The extra-judicial confession made by Ehsanullah to P.W.4 Muzaffar Hussain further corroborated the prosecution's case.The prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against Ehsanullah and Touqeer Ahmad, warranting their convictions.However, the court acquitted Jabir Khan due to insufficient evidence directly implicating him in the crime, as no incriminating material or weapon was recovered from him.----Citations/Precedents:Section 302(b) PPC (Punishment for Murder)Sections 6/7 ATA 1997 (Anti-Terrorism Act)Section 410 Cr.PC (Appeals)Section 21-H ATA 1997 (Confessions in Anti-Terrorism Cases)Relevant case law: 1998 SCMR 2669, 2007 SCMR 518----Judgment:The appeal is dismissed for Ehsanullah and Touqeer Ahmad, upholding their convictions and sentences.Ehsanullah's death sentence is confirmed.Jabir Khan is acquitted, and the impugned judgment is set aside regarding him, granting him the benefit of the doubt.The murder reference No. 03/2017 is answered in the affirmative.

Summary: Appeal against conviction... sifting of evidence.... statement of sole eye witness self contradictory... important witnesses were abandoned... a single doubt, if reasonable, would be sufficient for acquittal of an accused and not a combination of several doubts.

Summary: Pending

Summary: [Marks when to be rounded off - the maxim expressio unis est exclusion alterius i.e., the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other thing] This case revolves around the rounding off of marks obtained in the psychological assessment of candidates in the competitive examination for the post of Deputy Prosecutor General (BS-18) conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). The appellant, Mian Shaukat Ali, missed the merit by a margin of 0.5 marks and argued that if his marks in the psychological assessment (2.5 out of 5 marks) were rounded off to 3, his total marks would equal the marks of the last selected candidate. He contended that psychological assessment is part of the interview, and as the PPSC policy allows rounding off for interview marks, the same should be applicable to psychological assessment marks.The PPSC countered that their policy explicitly provides rounding off for interview marks but not for psychological assessment marks. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioner's plea, and the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court upheld the Lahore High Court's decision, stating that the PPSC policy specifically allows rounding off for interview marks but not for psychological assessment marks. The Court emphasized that the express mention of rounding off for the interview and the absence of such a provision for psychological assessment indicate the PPSC's intention not to extend the benefit of rounding off to psychological assessment marks. The Court also highlighted that rounding off can significantly impact total marks when only 5 marks are allocated for the psychological assessment, making it inappropriate in this context.The appeal was dismissed, and the Court declined to interfere with the Lahore High Court's decision. However, the Court expressed concern over the same lawyer, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal, representing opposing parties in connected matters, stressing that such conduct is not appropriate for an advocate.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Pending