Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The appellant was charged under section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for murder, section 377 PPC for committing sodomy, and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The case revolved around the murder and alleged sexual assault of a minor, Muhammad Tariq, aged 14-15 years, who was found dead after being seen with the accused, Fayyaz Rasool. The trial court convicted the appellant, awarding him the death penalty under section 302-B PPC and ten years of rigorous imprisonment under section 377 PPC, while acquitting him of the charge under section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance. The case was subsequently brought before the Federal Shariat Court on appeal and a murder reference. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction and death sentence under section 302-B PPC were appropriate given the circumstances. 2- Whether the conviction under section 377 PPC for sodomy was supported by sufficient evidence. 3- Whether the acquittal under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Conviction under Section 302-B PPC: The court acknowledged that the occurrence took place in daylight and was witnessed by multiple individuals, including the complainant and another witness. The medical evidence corroborated the injuries reported by the witnesses. The accused was seen with the deceased before the incident, and the murder weapon (churri) was recovered on the accused’s pointation. Despite these findings, the court observed that the motive for the murder remained unclear and suggested that there could have been multiple reasons for the crime. This uncertainty warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment, providing the benefit of the doubt regarding the unclear motive. --Conviction under Section 377 PPC: The court upheld the conviction for sodomy based on medical evidence, which indicated the presence of semen in the anal swabs of the deceased. The court referred to precedent where the Supreme Court maintained a conviction based on medical evidence alone in cases of sodomy. The court affirmed the conviction under section 377 PPC and maintained the sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment. --Acquittal under Section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance: The court found that there was no evidence to support the charge of abduction under section 12, as the deceased had willingly accompanied the accused. Outcome: The court upheld the acquittal under section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance. ----Citations/Precedents: 2007 SCMR 698 (Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction): The Supreme Court of Pakistan maintained a conviction based on medico-legal reports for sodomy, which was cited to support the conviction under section 377 PPC. Munsab Ali vs. Riasat, 1988 SCMR 1614: This precedent was referred to in the context of evaluating the presumption of the victim being a willing partner, which did not alter the conviction but impacted the sentencing.

Summary: S.302,34 PPCCharged u/s 164 Cr.PC,identification doubtful,weak corroborative evidence(Acquitted)

Summary: General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf's petition against the inclusion of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) meticulously examines a wide array of legal precedents and citations to underpin its decision. Here's a detailed overview of the key legal citations and precedents the court relied upon in its judgment:Interim Orders and Final Orders: The court deliberated on the nature of interim orders versus final orders, emphasizing that interim orders are meant to provide temporary relief until a final decision is made. It discussed how interim orders merge into final orders, losing their standalone significance upon the issuance of a final judgment. The court referenced several cases to illustrate this principle, including:PLD 1969 Karachi 546 (Roshan Din v. S.M.Badruddin), where it was held that interim orders merge into final orders.AIR 1987 Madras 173 (C.Kamatchi Ammal v. Kattabomman Transport Corpn. Ltd.), reaffirming that interim orders lapse with the decision of the main suit.AIR 1995 SC 441 (Mrs.Kavita Trehan and another v.Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.), discussing how interim orders are set aside upon the dismissal of the main suit.Fundamental Right to Travel: The court explored the fundamental right to travel as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan, particularly referencing Article 15. It reviewed cases where restrictions on travel were scrutinized, such as:PLD 1997 Lahore 617 (Wajid Shamas-ul-Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan), which discussed the fundamental right to travel and its constitutional protections.PLD 2005 Karachi 252 (Khan Muhammad Mahar v. Federation of Pakistan), where the court held that placing an individual's name on the ECL without valid reasons violates fundamental rights.Exit Control List (ECL) Regulations: The judgment examined the legal framework governing the ECL, particularly the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010. It highlighted Rule 2, which outlines the grounds for prohibiting a person from leaving Pakistan, and the requirement for the government to specify reasons for such prohibitions, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and transparency.Jurisdictional Issues: The court addressed jurisdictional challenges, particularly the argument that the Sindh High Court may not have territorial jurisdiction over matters decided by the Federal Government in Islamabad. It referred to cases that expanded on the concept of territorial jurisdiction in constitutional petitions, such as:PLD 2001 SC 340 (Anoud Power Generation Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others), discussing how jurisdiction depends on the nature of the relief sought and the effects of governmental actions across territorial boundaries.2009 CLD 1498 (LPG Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan), which held that federal decisions affecting individuals or entities in a province fall within the purview of the high courts in those provinces.Precedents on ECL and Personal Liberty: The court considered several cases where the inclusion of individuals' names on the ECL was challenged, underscoring the judiciary's role in protecting personal liberty and ensuring that any restrictions on the right to travel must be legally justified and proportionate. These included cases like PLD 2006 Karachi 530 (Farrukh Niaz v. Federal Government of Pakistan) and 2014 SCMR 856 (M/s.United Bank Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan & others), where the courts ordered the removal of names from the ECL due to procedural flaws or lack of justified reasons.

Summary: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Eviction order, setting aside of---Misrepresentation and fraud---Ingredients--Scope of S.12(2), C.P.C.---Applicant had failed to point out any fraud or misrepresentation to the court in obtaining the ejectment order---None of the ingredients of fraud and misrepresentation were mentioned in the application---Provisions of S. 12 (2), C.P.C. could not be extended to include the claim of ownership by the aggrieved party while challenging judicial orders passed by competent court---Remedy to the applicant was a civil suit to claim his title on the property and not the provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C. which had a limited scope of examining the validity of a judgment/ decree on the plea of lack of jurisdiction, fraud and misrepresentation---Applicant had not alleged any fraud against the respondent in obtaining the orders rather the facts were otherwise---Applicant had failed to point out any mis-reading and non-reading of evidence while in passing the impugned order---No jurisdictional defect was found in the impugned order---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.