Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The case involves who were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Pishin, for the murders of Wali Jan Agha and Dawood Agha. They were sentenced to death under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and were also sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 PPC with a fine. The case was brought before the Federal Shariat Court on appeal by the convicts, challenging their conviction and sentences. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court were justified based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether there were any procedural or evidentiary errors in the trial that could warrant a reversal of the conviction. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellants, confirming the trial court's decision. The key reasons for the decision include: The appellants were arrested almost immediately after the incident with the weapons used in the commission of the crime in their possession. The prosecution's case was supported by multiple witnesses, including the complainant and other eyewitnesses, whose testimonies were consistent and credible. The forensic evidence, including the recovery of bullets and the positive forensic science report, corroborated the prosecution's narrative. The court found that the chain of events presented by the prosecution was logical, consistent, and left no room for reasonable doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Askar Jan and others vs. Muhammad Daud and others (2010 SCMR 1604): This case was referenced to discuss the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions and the importance of discovery based on information provided by the accused in police custody. The court concluded that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and did not require any intervention. The appeals were dismissed, and the death sentences were confirmed.

Summary: Background: The case involves two petitioners, who were convicted by the trial court for violating Articles 3/4 of The Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The trial court sentenced them to two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000 each. The petitioners appealed to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, but the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The petitioners then filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Federal Shariat Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient and credible to support the conviction of the petitioners. 2- Whether the trial and appellate courts properly evaluated the evidence and the circumstances of the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court, presided by Justice Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, found that the prosecution's case was full of contradictions, omissions, and other infirmities. Key issues included the following: Discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The unexplained delay in sending the recovered bottles for chemical analysis. The failure to establish a clear chain of custody for the evidence. The non-examination of critical witnesses and failure to produce key documentary evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, set aside the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, and acquitted the petitioners, extending them the benefit of the doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Mansha vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Muhammad Ilyas vs. The State (1997 SCMR 25) Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2009 SCMR 230) The court emphasized that in cases where evidence creates reasonable doubt, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the accused as a matter of right, not as a concession.

Summary: Background: The petitioners challenged the custom of Swara/Vani in Kurram Agency (erstwhile FATA), which involves giving a female in marriage as a form of compensation to settle disputes. The petition argued that this custom is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, unconstitutional, and violates principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioners challenged a decision by the Additional District Magistrate of Upper Kurram, Parachinar, which upheld a jirga's decision mandating the marriage of a female under this custom. ----Issues: 1- Whether the custom of Swara/Vani is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam and therefore should be declared null and void. 2- Whether the decision of the Additional District Magistrate, which validated the jirga's recommendation under Rewaj-e-Kurram, is against Islamic principles and should be set aside. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Repugnancy to Islam: The court held that the custom of Swara/Vani, where females are given in marriage as a form of compensation to settle disputes, is un-Islamic. The court referenced Quranic verses and Ahadith to emphasize that no person should bear the burden of another's wrongdoing, and the practice of Swara/Vani violates this principle. The court highlighted that this custom, prevalent in various parts of Pakistan under different names, is not only un-Islamic but also unconstitutional and illegal. --Legal Status Post-25th Amendment: With the 25th Constitutional Amendment, FATA was merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, extending national and provincial laws to the area. This change in legal status led to the abrogation of the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) and the application of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), including Section 310-A PPC, which explicitly criminalizes the practice of giving females in marriage as compensation. The court declared the practice of Swara/Vani as un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and illegal. The decision of the Additional District Magistrate, which validated the jirga's recommendation under Rewaj-e-Kurram, was set aside. The petition was disposed of accordingly, affirming the illegality of such customs under the new legal framework established by the 25th Constitutional Amendment. ----Citations/Precedents: Surah Al-Fatir, Ayah-18: "No bearer will bear the burden of any other person." Surah Al-Anaam, Ayah-164: "And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another." Hadith (Sunnan Abu Daud): The Prophet (PBUH) emphasized that no person is accountable for the crime of another. Section 310-A, Pakistan Penal Code: Criminalizes the practice of giving females in marriage as a form of compensation (Swara/Vani). Constitution Petition No. 24 of 2012 and Civil Petition No. 773-P of 2018: Supreme Court ruling that no individual or group, under any name, can assume the jurisdiction of a civil or criminal court without lawful authority.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by the Model Criminal Trial Court-II/IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The conviction was related to a robbery that resulted in the murder of three individuals during a heist at a Mobilink Franchise shop. The appellant was accused of being involved in the robbery and the subsequent murders. The appellant appealed against the conviction, challenging the validity of the trial court’s judgment. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in applying Section 17(4) of the Hudood Ordinance, which mandates the death penalty, and instead sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment. 2- Whether the trial court properly followed the mandatory legal provisions, particularly regarding the imposition of a lesser sentence without providing the necessary reasons as required under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). 3- Whether the trial court’s failure to adhere to the legal requirements in sentencing renders the judgment defective and necessitates a re-trial. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court identified significant legal flaws in the trial court's judgment, leading to the decision to set aside the conviction and remand the case for re-trial: --Misapplication of Section 17(4) of the Hudood Ordinance: The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 17(4), which only provides the death penalty as Hadd for an adult guilty of Haraabah involving murder. However, the trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment as Ta’zir, without providing the mandatory justification for not imposing the death penalty. The Federal Shariat Court emphasized that this misapplication of the law was a critical error, as Section 17(4) does not allow for any sentence other than death. --Failure to Provide Justification for Lesser Sentence: The trial court did not comply with Section 367(5) Cr.P.C., which requires the court to state reasons for imposing a lesser sentence than death when the law provides for the death penalty. The failure to provide these reasons renders the judgment legally defective. The Federal Shariat Court highlighted that sentencing is a serious judicial responsibility that requires careful consideration of the law and the circumstances of the case. --Remand for Re-Trial: Due to these significant legal errors, the Federal Shariat Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for re-trial. The trial court was directed to re-write the judgment by properly applying the mandatory legal provisions, including providing reasons for the sentence imposed. The re-trial was ordered to be completed within three months, ensuring that the appellant's right to a fair trial, as mandated by Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ismail v. State (2017 SCMR 713) Muhammad Aslam & others v. The State & another (PLD 2009 SC 777) Abdul Salam v. The State (2000 SCMR 338) The appeal was accepted, and the case was remanded to the trial court for re-trial due to substantial legal and procedural errors in the original judgment.

Summary: The practice of Swara/Vani and similar customs to be un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and illegal --- the Federal Shariat Court dealt with a legal challenge regarding the practice of Swara/Vani in Kurram Agency, Pakistan. The petitioners sought to declare the custom of Swara/Vani as null and void, alleging that it was un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and repugnant to the principles of natural justice.The case revolved around the following key points:Mst. Sakeena Bibi, an adult Muslim girl, had contracted a Nikah with Syed Mushahid Hussain with her consent. Her family had initially refused the marriage proposal from the groom's side, but Mst. Sakeena proceeded with the Nikah independently.After the Nikah, Mst. Sakeena's family members, along with others, took her away with a promise to resolve the matter within a month. Various local jirgas were convened, but their decisions were not accepted by the parties.Eventually, a council of elders decided the matter in accordance with Rewaj-e-Kurram, a local custom. This decision was also endorsed by the Additional District Magistrate.The petitioners challenged the practice of Swara/Vani and the decision of the Additional District Magistrate in the Federal Shariat Court, claiming that they were against the principles of Islam, the Constitution, and natural justice.The Court noted several significant developments that affected the legal landscape of the case:The 25th Constitutional Amendment merged the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, resulting in the abrogation of the Frontier Crime Regulations (FCR) and the extension of national and provincial laws to the merged areas.The Court cited a 2019 Supreme Court judgment, declaring that no individual or group could assume the jurisdiction of a civil or criminal court without lawful authority.The Court highlighted the introduction of Section 310-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, which prescribed penalties for giving a female in marriage or otherwise as part of practices like Swara/Vani. This section aimed to eradicate such practices.Ultimately, the Court found the practice of Swara/Vani and similar customs to be un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and illegal, aligning with the principles of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. Given the changes in legal status due to the constitutional amendment, the Court disposed of the petition.

Summary: Minimum age of marriage set at 16 years ---- child marriage restraint act upheld --- Two principles were identified from the Hadith:The Nikah of a minor girl could be contracted by her guardian but could only be consummated after she reached adulthood.Consummation of marriage in such cases should occur after the girl attains adulthood, with the age varying depending on various factors.Based on these principles, the minimum marriage age for girls was set at 16 years by the government.The court emphasized that such restrictions were not against Islamic principles but rather aimed at protecting society from potential harm.The court also referred to the concept of Sad-uz-Zaraey, which allows the state to control acts that may have harmful consequences for society, and cited examples from Islamic history, including actions taken by Hazrat Umar (R.A.).The court acknowledged that while most Muslim jurists permit the Nikah of a minor girl, there are opposing opinions within Islamic jurisprudence. It also referred to relevant references and sources.The court argued that setting a minimum marriage age of 16 for girls would help promote education, which is considered essential in Islam. Education is seen as a fundamental factor in individual development and empowerment, particularly for women.The court emphasized that the goal of marriage in Islam is to protect and promote genealogy and the next generation, aligning with the concept of Maqasid-us-Shariah.The court concluded that the petition was misconceived and dismissed it.In sum, the court upheld the legality of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, and its minimum age requirements for marriage, emphasizing the importance of education and the protection of individuals' rights in accordance with Islamic principles.

Summary: Background: The appellants, challenged their conviction by the Sessions Judge/JST/ASJ at Nowshera. They were convicted under Sections 302(b)/34 and 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, as well as Section 15 of the Arms Act, 2013. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and other penalties related to the murder and robbery of Jami Ullah. The appellants contested the trial court's decision, leading to the appeals in the Federal Shariat Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on circumstantial evidence. 2- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 3- Whether the recoveries made during the investigation were admissible and reliable. 4- Whether the appellants were given a fair trial, including the proper use of Call Data Records (CDR) and ballistic evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Circumstantial Evidence: The Federal Shariat Court found that the prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and leave no reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. The court noted several gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, making the case against the appellants doubtful. --Testimony of the Complainant and Witnesses: The court observed that the complainant, Ajmal Khan (P.W.10), initially did not mention the involvement of the appellants or the robbery of the motorcycle. His later statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), implicating the appellants, was seen as an afterthought and unreliable. The court also found the testimony of Imran Khan (P.W.11) to be inconsequential, as he did not directly witness the crime. --Call Data Record (CDR) and Mobile Recovery: The CDR evidence was deemed insufficient and unreliable as it did not link the appellants directly to the crime. The recovery of the mobile phone from a third party (Zia-ur-Rehman) further weakened the prosecution's case, as the direct connection between the appellants and the stolen property was not established. --Recovery of Rs. 1500 and Motorcycle Parts: The court found the recovery of Rs. 1500 from Gohar Khan to be highly improbable and not credible. The recovery of the motorcycle parts was also considered invalid due to joint recovery, which is not permissible under the law. The court highlighted that the recovery process was tainted and manipulated, rendering it unreliable. --Ballistic Evidence: The court criticized the handling of the ballistic evidence, noting that the crime empties and the alleged weapon were sent together for analysis, which raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The delay in sending the evidence to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) further undermined its credibility. The Federal Shariat Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the trial court had misread the evidence and wrongly convicted the appellants. As a result, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted Gohar Khan and Zeeshan. They were ordered to be released unless required in any other case.

Summary: Background: Mst. Naseema Bibi, the appellant, filed a complaint under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, against Murad, the respondent, accusing him of making a false allegation of zina (fornication) against her. Naseema Bibi, a married woman with a husband working in Saudi Arabia, alleged that Murad falsely claimed she was pregnant with an illegitimate child. This accusation was made public, causing significant damage to her reputation and that of her family. After undergoing medical tests that confirmed she was not pregnant, Naseema Bibi filed the complaint. The trial court, however, acquitted Murad, leading to this appeal. ----Issues: 1) Whether the trial court erred in acquitting Murad despite the evidence presented by Naseema Bibi. ---2) Whether the delay in filing the complaint and the absence of Tazkiyah al-Shuhood (credibility of witnesses) were appropriately considered by the trial court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and remanded the case for re-writing the judgment. The court provided the following reasoning: Tazkiyah al-Shuhood: The trial court acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the prosecution witnesses did not meet the criteria for Tazkiyah al-Shuhood, a mandatory requirement in cases of Hadd. However, the trial court failed to provide clear reasons or evidence to support this conclusion. The Federal Shariat Court emphasized the importance of properly evaluating the credibility of witnesses and providing cogent reasons if they are found lacking. Delay in Filing the Complaint: The trial court viewed the one-month delay in reporting the matter as a sign of possible deliberation or false implication. The Federal Shariat Court rejected this reasoning, noting that in cases of Qazf, where honor and reputation are at stake, some delay is natural and permissible under Islamic law. The court cited Islamic jurisprudence that allows for delays in such cases due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. Evidence Misinterpretation: The trial court misread the evidence, particularly regarding the relationship between the complainant’s father-in-law and the accused. The court also wrongly disregarded key medical evidence, such as the negative pregnancy test, due to a minor typographical error on the ultrasound report. The Federal Shariat Court found these errors to be significant enough to warrant a retrial. Non-Compliance with Section 367 Cr.P.C.: The trial court's judgment did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 367 Cr.P.C., which requires the judgment to contain points for determination, decisions on those points, and reasons for the decisions. The Federal Shariat Court held that this failure alone was sufficient to vitiate the judgment. ----Citations/Precedents: Sanaullah vs. The State (PLD 1991 FSC 186): Discusses the concept of Tazkiyah al-Shuhood and its application in cases of Hadd. Dr. Wahbah Zuhayli, al-Fiqh al-Islami wa-Adilatuhu; Dar al-Ash’at Karachi, Vol. IV: Provides commentary on the permissibility of delays in filing Qazf complaints under Islamic law. Al-Bada'i al-Sana'i Fi Tartib Al-Shara'i: Discusses the treatment of Qazf in Islamic jurisprudence, including the rights of legal heirs in Qazf cases. SAHAB KHAN and 4 others vs. THE STATE and others (1997 SCMR 871): Discusses the importance of compliance with Section 367 Cr.P.C. in criminal judgments. ----Outcome: The appeal was accepted, the trial court’s judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for re-writing the judgment in compliance with legal requirements, including the proper evaluation of evidence and adherence to Section 367 Cr.P.C. The trial court was directed to conclude the case within two months.

Summary: Acquital granted----Background: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pindi Bhattian, for the offense of Qazf liable to Hadd under the Offense of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. They were sentenced to 80 stripes each for allegedly making false allegations against the complainant, who filed a suit for recovery of maintenance and dowry articles. The appellants contested this judgment, and a criminal reference for confirmation of the Hadd punishment was also made to the Federal Shariat Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the allegations made by the appellants against the complainant constituted the offense of Qazf under the Qazf Ordinance. 2- Whether the trial court correctly initiated and conducted proceedings under the Qazf Ordinance based on the evidence and allegations presented. 3- Whether the subsequent compromise between the parties and the withdrawal of allegations by the complainant affect the enforceability of the Hadd punishment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants based on the following reasoning: ---Non-Constitution of Qazf Offense: The court concluded that the allegations made by the appellants did not constitute the offense of Qazf as defined under Section 3 of the Qazf Ordinance, 1979. The court noted that the allegations against the complainant did not involve an imputation of Zina (adultery), which is a necessary element for constituting the offense of Qazf. ---Material Irregularity by Trial Court: The trial court erred in initiating proceedings under the Qazf Ordinance based on allegations that did not meet the legal criteria for Qazf. The court found that the trial court's actions were not supported by the legal provisions of the Qazf Ordinance. ---Compromise and Withdrawal of Allegations: The complainant later withdrew the allegations against the appellants, and both parties entered into a compromise. Under Section 9(2) of the Qazf Ordinance, Hadd punishment cannot be enforced if the complainant withdraws the allegation before the execution of the sentence. Since the complainant withdrew her allegations before the confirmation of the Hadd punishment, the court held that the Hadd could not be enforced. The court, therefore, accepted the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and acquitted the appellants. The criminal reference for confirmation of the Hadd sentence was answered in the negative, and the appellants' bail bonds were discharged. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 3 of the Offense of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 Section 9(2) of the Offense of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Summary: Acquittal --- Background: The petitioner, after being acquitted in a previous Qazf (false accusation of adultery) case filed by the respondent, sought to challenge this acquittal through a special leave to appeal. The initial complaint, which stemmed from a dispute between the petitioner and his wife over alleged zina (adultery) involving his second marriage, was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the acquittal of the respondents, filed multiple complaints and appeals, including the present one, seeking to overturn the acquittal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the acquittal of the respondents in the Qazf case was the result of misappreciation of evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. 2- Whether the repeated litigation on the same allegations contravenes the principles of double jeopardy as enshrined in Article 13(a) of the Constitution and Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the repeated litigation on the same allegations, after the initial acquittal had reached finality, violated the principles of double jeopardy. The court emphasized that once a person is acquitted, they cannot be tried again for the same offense. The court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims, stating that the allegations did not attract the offense of Qazf under the relevant legal provisions. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove any intent to harm the reputation of the petitioner, a necessary element to establish the offense of Qazf. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the respondents, emphasizing that the acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed in limine, upholding the acquittal of the respondents. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code PLD 2017 Supreme Court 265 (Ghulam Hussain v. The State) 2019 SCMR 2085 (Qurban Hussain alias Ashiq v. State) PLD 2013 Supreme Court 443 (Intizar Hussain v. Hamza Ameer) PLD 2012 Supreme Court 196 (Azhar Ali v. State) PLD 1988 Supreme Court 214 (Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamraz Khan)