https://www.facebook.com/748071558385764/

Zafar Iqbal Sheikh, Bahawalpur (2026)

12/02/2026

2025 SCMR 1360
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان
ججز: جسٹس محمد ہاشم خان کاکڑ، جسٹس صلاح الدین پنہور، جسٹس اشتیاق ابراہیم
افتخار کیانی عرف کھارا — اپیل کنندہ
بمقابلہ
ریاست — فریقِ مخالف
فوجداری اپیل نمبر 703 آف 2020
فیصلہ مورخہ 28 اپریل 2025
(بمقابلہ فیصلہ مورخہ 22.02.2016 فوجداری اپیل نمبر 66-جے/2011 اور قتل ریفرنس نمبر 73/2011، صادرہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ، راولپنڈی بینچ)
(الف) دفعات 302(b) اور 34 تعزیراتِ پاکستان — قتلِ عمد، مشترکہ نیت — شواہد کا ازسرِنو جائزہ
اپیل کنندہ پر الزام تھا کہ اس نے اپنے شریک ملزمان کے ہمراہ مدعی کے بھائی کو قتل کیا۔
عینی شہادت (Ocular Account)
واقعہ کی عینی شہادت مدعی اور ایک گواہ نے فراہم کی۔ دونوں گواہوں کے بیانات تاریخ، وقت، مقامِ وقوعہ اور طریقہ واردات سمیت تمام اہم پہلوؤں پر ایک دوسرے کی تائید کرتے تھے۔
دونوں عینی گواہوں نے واضح طور پر مقتول کو فائر آرم انجری لگانے کا کردار اپیل کنندہ کے ذمہ عائد کیا۔
چونکہ واقعہ دن کی روشنی میں پیش آیا اور اپیل کنندہ پہلے سے گواہوں کے لیے شناسا تھا، اس لیے غلط شناخت کا امکان خارج ہو گیا۔
گواہوں کی جائے وقوعہ پر موجودگی قدرتی اور معقول طور پر ثابت کی گئی۔ دونوں گواہوں پر طویل اور جرحِ سخت کی گئی مگر ان کے بیانات کی ساکھ کو متزلزل کرنے کے لیے کوئی اہم بات سامنے نہ آ سکی۔
اگرچہ مدعی مقتول کا حقیقی بھائی تھا اور دوسرا گواہ قریبی رشتہ دار تھا، مگر دفاع اس امر کی کوئی معقول وجہ یا محرک پیش نہ کر سکا کہ وہ اصل مجرموں کو چھوڑ کر اپیل کنندہ کو جھوٹا نامزد کیوں کرتے۔
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ایسے حالات میں، جہاں قریبی رشتہ داروں نے اپنے عزیز کا قتل اپنی آنکھوں سے دیکھا ہو، کسی بے گناہ کو اصل مجرم کی جگہ نامزد کرنے کا تصور نہایت بعید از قیاس ہے اور فوجداری قانون میں ش*ذ و نادر ہی دیکھنے میں آتا ہے۔
طبی شہادت (Medical Evidence)
میڈیکل آفیسر، جس نے مقتول کا پوسٹ مارٹم کیا، کی شہادت مکمل طور پر استغاثہ کے مؤقف کی تائید کرتی تھی۔
میڈیکل آفیسر کے مطابق فائر آرم انجری سے مقتول کی سانس کی نالی (Trachea) پھٹ گئی اور شدید خون بہنے کے باعث اس کی غیر طبعی موت واقع ہوئی۔
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ استغاثہ نے اپیل کنندہ کا جرم ہر معقول شک سے بالاتر ثابت کر دیا ہے۔
لہٰذا اپیل خارج کر دی گئی۔
حوالہ جات:
Asfandiyar v. The State (2021 SCMR 2009)
Muhammad Abbas v. The State (2023 SCMR 487)
(ب) متعلقہ اور دلچسپی رکھنے والے گواہان کی شہادت
دفاع نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ چونکہ دونوں عینی گواہ مقتول کے قریبی رشتہ دار تھے، اس لیے وہ "دلچسپی رکھنے والے گواہ" (Interested Witnesses) ہیں۔
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا:
محض کسی گواہ کا مقتول سے رشتہ دار ہونا اس کی شہادت کو ناقابلِ اعتبار نہیں بناتا۔
دلچسپی رکھنے والا گواہ وہ ہوتا ہے جو کسی بیرونی مفاد یا بدنیتی کے تحت جھوٹی نامزدگی کرے۔
موجودہ مقدمہ میں دفاع کوئی ایسا محرک یا عناد ثابت نہ کر سکا جو جھوٹی نامزدگی کی نشاندہی کرے۔
دشمنی، بغض یا بدنیتی کا کوئی ٹھوس مواد موجود نہ ہونے کی صورت میں صرف رشتہ داری کی بنیاد پر شہادت کو رد نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
چنانچہ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ جرم بلا شبہ ثابت ہو چکا ہے اور اپیل مسترد کی جاتی ہے۔
حوالہ جات:
Azhar Hussain v. The State (2022 SCMR 1907)
Shamsher Ahmad v. The State (2022 SCMR 1931)
(ج) معمولی تضادات — غیر مؤثر
دفاع نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ عینی گواہوں کے بیانات میں اہم تضادات موجود ہیں۔
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ مبینہ تضادات معمولی نوعیت کے تھے۔ مثال کے طور پر:
مدعی نے ایف آئی آر میں بیان کیا کہ فائر مقتول کی گردن کے سامنے والے حصے پر لگا؛
عدالت میں بیان دیتے وقت کہا کہ گولی آر پار ہو گئی؛
جبکہ طبی شہادت کے مطابق زخم کا داخلی نشان گردن کے قریب سینے کے اوپری حصے پر اور خارجی نشان پیٹھ کے درمیانی حصے پر تھا۔
اس کے علاوہ دفاع کوئی ایسا بڑا تضاد ثابت نہ کر سکا جو استغاثہ کے مقدمہ کی بنیاد کو کمزور کرے۔
عدالت نے قرار دیا:
معمولی تضادات یا کمی بیشی جو مقدمہ کی جڑ پر اثر انداز نہ ہوں، غیر اہم سمجھے جاتے ہیں۔
شواہد کا جائزہ مقدار کے بجائے معیار کی بنیاد پر لیا جاتا ہے۔
شہادت کی ساکھ کا انحصار گواہ کی حیثیت پر نہیں بلکہ بیان کے مواد اور ہم آہنگی پر ہوتا ہے۔
جانچ بیان کی کی جاتی ہے، نہ کہ بیان دینے والے شخص کی۔
شہادت کو منطق، تسلسل اور سچائی کے معیار پر پرکھا جاتا ہے۔
عدالت مطمئن تھی کہ عینی گواہان کی موجودگی اور شہادت قابلِ اعتماد اور اعتماد کے لائق ہے۔
لہٰذا معمولی تضادات بریت کے لیے کافی نہیں۔
چنانچہ اپیل خارج کر دی گئی۔
حوالہ جات:
Ali Taj v. The State (2023 SCMR 900)
Muhammad Iqbal v. The State (1996 SCMR 908)
Naeem Akhtar v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 396)
Faisal Mehmood v. The State (2010 SCMR 1025)
Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (2011 SCMR 460)
Abid Ali v. The State (2011 SCMR 208)

12/02/2026

2025 S C M R 1360
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ IFTIKHAR KIYANI alias Khara ---Appellant Versus The STATE ---Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 703 of 2020, decided on 28th April, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 22.02.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 66-J of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 73 of 201, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and a witness---Testimonies of said witnesses were consistent and corroborative with each other on all material particulars of the occurrence, including the date, time, place, and the modus operandi of the offence---Both the eye-witnesses unequivocally attributed the role of causing firearm injury on the person of the deceased to the appellant---As the occurrence took place in broad daylight and the appellant was previously known to the eyewitnesses, the possibility of mistaken identity stood excluded--Presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence had been satisfactorily explained and appeared natural---Both the eyewitnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, yet nothing material could be elicited to undermine their credibility or shake their evidence---No doubt, complainant was the real brother of the deceased and witness was a close relative but the defence failed to advance any plausible reason or motive for their alleged false implication of the appellant while sparing the actual perpetrator(s)--Proposition of wrongful substitution, in such circumstances where close relatives had witnessed the murder of their kin, was inherently implausible and was rarely encountered in criminal jurisprudence--Medical evidence furnished by Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, fully supported the prosecution's case---According to the statement of Medical Officer firearm injury rupturing the trachea of the deceased and causing severe bleeding resulted into the unnatural death of the deceased--Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Asfandiyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009 and Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Related and interested witnesses, evidence of---Reliance--Appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant---Allegedly, both the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased, therefore, were interested witnesses---Mere fact of a witness being related to the deceased did not, in itself, render the testimony unreliable or tainted--Interested witness is one who is motivated by some extraneous consideration or harbors an ulterior motive to falsely implicate an accused---In the instant case, the defence had not been able to bring on record any such motive that could suggest a false implication of the appellant---In the absence of any tangible material indicating enmity, malice, or ill-will, the testimony of related witnesses could not be discarded solely on the ground of relationship---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1907 and Shamsher Ahmad and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1931 rel.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses--Inconsequential---Accused-appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant---The argument that statements of the eye-witnesses were riddled with material contradictions and discrepancies did not bear merit---There were only minor inconsistencies for instance, that the complainant in his report stated that the firearm injury was sustained on the front of the neck by the deceased, whereas in his Court testimony he deposed that the shot passed through and through and this assertion stood contradicted by the medical evidence which indicated the entry wound was on the upper part of the chest near the neck and the exit wound was located at the mid-back---Other than this defence was unable to point to any substantial contradiction capable of undermining the foundational structure of the prosecution's case--Even otherwise, Court was fully convinced qua the presence of the eyewitnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence and their testimony was trustworthy and confidence inspiring, therefore, such minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the eyewitnesses with the medial evidence would not be sufficient for acquittal of the appellant---Minor discrepancies or omissions, which did not go to the root of the prosecution's case, were to be treated as inconsequential---Evidence of the prosecution was to be evaluated on the touchstone of quality rather than quantity---Moreover, it was not the identity or status of the person testifying that determined the credibility of the evidence, but the content and coherence of the testimony itself---Therefore, it was the statement that was to be judged and not the person and it must be weighed on the scales of logic, consistency, and truthfulness--Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Ali Taj and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 900; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1996 SCMR 908; Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396; Faisal Mehmood v. the State 2010 SCMR 1025; Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460 and Abid Ali v. The State 2011 SCMR 208 rel.

12/02/2026

2025 SCMR 1357
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان
ججز: جسٹس سید منصور علی شاہ اور جسٹس عائشہ اے ملک
رب نواز — درخواست گزار
بمقابلہ
شہزاد حسن و دیگر — فریقین
فوجداری پٹیشن نمبر 253-ایل/2025
فیصلہ مورخہ 26 مارچ 2025
(بمقابلہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ لاہور کے حکم مورخہ 18.02.2025 برآمدہ فوجداری متفرق نمبر 5460-بی/2025)
قانونی حوالہ جات:
ضابطہ فوجداری 1898 کی دفعہ 497(5)
تعزیرات پاکستان 1860 کی دفعات 302، 427، 109 اور 34
آئینِ پاکستان کا آرٹیکل 185(3)
مقدمہ کا خلاصہ:
ملزم پر درخواست گزار کے بھائی کے قتل (قتلِ عمد)، شرارت، اعانتِ جرم اور مشترکہ نیت کے تحت جرم کرنے کا الزام تھا۔ درخواست گزار/مدعی لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی جانب سے ملزم کو بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت دیے جانے کے خلاف تھا اور ضمانت کی منسوخی کا خواہاں تھا۔
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
ضمانت اگرچہ ایک رعایت ہے جو ملزم کو مقدمہ کے فیصلے تک آزادی یقینی بنانے کے لیے دی جاتی ہے، لیکن یہ کوئی غیر مشروط حق نہیں ہے اور اگر اس کا غلط استعمال ہو تو اسے واپس لیا جا سکتا ہے۔
ضمانت منسوخ کی جا سکتی ہے اگر ملزم رہائی کے بعد ایسا طرزِ عمل اختیار کرے جو انصاف کی فراہمی کے عمل کو متاثر کرے، مثلاً:
گواہوں کو متاثر یا ہراساں کرنے کی کوشش
شواہد میں رد و بدل
ضمانت کے دوران کسی اور جرم کا ارتکاب
عدالت کی عائد کردہ شرائط کی خلاف ورزی
مزید برآں، اگر ملزم بلاجواز عدالت میں پیش نہ ہو، یا ایسے نئے حقائق سامنے آئیں جو ضمانت دینے کی بنیاد کو نمایاں طور پر تبدیل کر دیں، تو عدالت ضمانت منسوخ کر سکتی ہے۔
تاہم، فرد کی آزادی کو منصفانہ ٹرائل اور نظامِ انصاف پر عوامی اعتماد کے تقاضوں کے ساتھ متوازن رکھنا ضروری ہے۔
مندرجہ بالا اسباب کے علاوہ، ضمانت کے حکم کو منسوخ کرنے کے لیے عدالت عموماً دو بنیادوں پر مداخلت کرتی ہے:
جب متعلقہ حکم بظاہر خلافِ قانون (Perverse) ہو؛ یا
جب حکم قانونِ ضمانت کے اصولوں کو نظر انداز کر کے جاری کیا گیا ہو۔
خلافِ قانون یا "Perverse" حکم وہ ہوتا ہے جو ریکارڈ پر موجود مواد کے برعکس ہو، یا اہم مواد کو نظر انداز کر کے، یا بغیر وجوہات بیان کیے جاری کیا گیا ہو۔ ایسا حکم من مانا، بے بنیاد یا صوابدید کے غلط استعمال پر مبنی تصور کیا جاتا ہے۔
عدالتیں ضمانت کے مرحلے پر شواہد کی گہرائی میں جا کر جانچ نہیں کرتیں بلکہ صرف ابتدائی طور پر یہ دیکھتی ہیں کہ آیا ملزم کے خلاف جرم کے ارتکاب کے بارے میں "معقول بنیادیں" موجود ہیں یا نہیں۔
موجودہ مقدمہ میں ضمانت منسوخی کے لیے بیان کردہ کوئی بھی بنیاد موجود نہیں تھی۔
لہٰذا، سپریم کورٹ نے اپیل کی اجازت دینے سے انکار کرتے ہوئے درخواست خارج کر دی۔
نظائر (Case Law) حوالہ جات:
Zaro v. State, 1974 SCMR 11
Sidra Abbas v. State, 2020 SCMR 2089
Farid v. Ghulam Hussain, 1968 SCMR 924
Khalid Saigol v. State, PLD 1962 SC 495

12/02/2026

2025 S C M R 1357
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
RAB NAWAZ ---Petitioner Versus SHEHZAD HASSAN and others ---Respondents Crl. P. No. 253-L of 2025, decided on 26th March, 2025. (Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18.02.2025 passed in Crl. Misc.No. 5460-B of 2025). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 427, 109 & 34--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185 (3)---Qatl-i-amd, mischief, abetment, common intention---Application for cancellation of bail, dismissal of--Petitioner/complainant was aggrieved of grant of post-arrest bail to respondent/accused by High Court---Held: Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Bail, though a concession granted to ensure the liberty of an accused pending trial, is not an unqualified right and can be withdrawn, if misused---Bail may be cancelled if the accused, after securing release, engaged in conduct that undermined the administration of justice---Such grounds included attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing another offence while on bail, or violating conditions imposed by the Court---Furthermore, if the accused fails to appear before the Court without just cause, or if new facts come to light that materially altered the basis on which bail was granted, the Court may justifiably revoke the concession---However, the liberty of an individual must be balanced against the need to ensure a fair trial and uphold public confidence in the justice system---Other than the above, the principles evolved for examining a bail granting order for the purpose of cancellation, the Court usually interferes on two grounds: (i) when the impugned order is perverse on the face of it, or (ii) when the impugned order has been made in clear disregard of some principles of the law of bail---Perverse order is one that has been passed against the weight of the material on the record or by ignoring such material or without giving reasons; such order is also termed as arbitrary, whimsical and capricious---Courts are not to indulge in the exercise of a deeper appreciation of material available on record at the bail stage and are only to determine tentatively, by looking at such material, whether or not there exist any "reasonable grounds" for believing that the accused person is guilty of the alleged offence--None of the said grounds for cancellation of bail were attracted in the present case---Accordingly, leave to appeal was declined and the petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Zaro v. State 1974 SCMR 11; Sidra Abbas v. State 2020 SCMR 2089; Farid v. Ghulam Hussan 1968 SCMR 924 and Khalid Saigol v. State PLD 1962 SC 495 rel.

19/09/2025

P L D 2025 Supreme Court 478
Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ ALTAF HUSSAIN---Petitioner Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Petition No.876 of 2022, decided on 23rd April, 2025. (Against the Order/judgment dated 27-05-2022 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Crl. Revision (T) No. 5 of 2022). (a) Balochistan Sea Fisheries Ordinance (IX of 1971)-------Ss. 3 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185 (3)---Illicit fishing--Constructive knowledge, principle of---Applicability---Fishing trawler, confiscation of---Petitioner sought release of his trawler and other fishing equipment on the plea that illegal fishing activity was done by his employees without his knowledge---Validity---Despite assertion of ignorance by petitioner, there was overwhelming evidence of illicit fishing on his vessel and the same was insufficient to absolve him of liability---Even if petitioner did not possess actual knowledge of certain facts or information, he was presumed to be aware of them as proprietor of the trawler---Such presumption was based on the fact that information was reasonably accessible to him and that he should have been aware of the facts in the light of his position, duty and circumstances---Petitioner was responsible for illegal actions of his employees as proprietor of trawler as a result of his failure to conduct reasonable background checks---Constructive knowledge was a critical legal principle that guaranteed accountability by assuming knowledge in a situation where it was reasonable to anticipate awareness--Petitioner did not file any application for release of trawler in question on superdari at trial stage, and likely was awaiting the outcome of trial at that time---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. (b) Maxim-------Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus---Meaning---He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden.

19/09/2025

P L D 2025 Supreme Court 425
Present: Musarrat Hilali, Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ MUHAMMAD KHAN alias MITHU---Appellants Versus The STATE and others---Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2023 out of SCJP No. 285 of 2017, decided on 17th February, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 02.10.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.241-J of 2009 and Murder Reference No. 256 of 2009) (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978, Rr. 90 & 91---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Non-filing of appeal---Condonation of delay---Jail authorities, responsibility of--Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts and no Jail Appeal was filed by him despite being in jail for more than thirteen years before filing of appeal before Supreme Court---Validity---Superintendent of Jail should have obtained and forwarded appeal as he was under obligation to facilitate petitioner/convict in filing of appeal within the period of limitation as prescribed under Rule 91 of Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978---Technicalities should not hamper Court of justice---Powers regarding condonation under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 should be liberally exercised to ensure administration of justice in its true spirit---Supreme Court condoned the delay of more than thirteen years caused in filing of Jail Appeal against death sentence on three counts---Application was allowed. Muhammad Bakhsh alias Muhammadi v. The State 1985 SCMR 72; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State PLD 2002 SC 287 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State PLD 2009 SC 814 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S.302 (b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Triple murder--Death sentence on three counts---Principle of expectancy of life--Motive not proved---Plea of substitution---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death on three counts for committing triple murder---Plea raised by accused was that it was a blind murder---Validity---Both the eye-witnesses had plausibly explained their presence with deceased at the spot at the time of occurrence---Presence of complainant with three deceased out of whom one was his brother and remaining two were his wife and daughter respectively, was quite natural and appealable---In villages such close relatives do associate and accompany each other to market/bazaar for purchase of household articles---Substitution of real culprits, especially in cases where eyewitnesses lost their kith and kins before their own eyes was a rare phenomenon---Once motive is set up by prosecution, but thereafter fails to prove the same, then prosecution must suffer the consequences and not the defense---Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction of accused recorded by two Courts below under section 302(b), P.P.C. but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life on three counts as prosecution failed to prove motive and there were minor discrepancies in evidence coupled with long incarceration of accused, since his arrest including his period in death cell---Appeal was dismissed. Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 2002 SC 52; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 2001 SC 222; Asfandiyar v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 2009; Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487; Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1907; Shamsher Ahmad and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1931; Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723; Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795; Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State 2023 SCMR 566; Taiamal Hussain Shah v. The State and another 2022 SCMR 1567; Liaqat Ali and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 780; Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736; Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 810; Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki's case 1993 SCMR 1660 and Falak Sher's case 1999 SCMR 2432 rel.
(c) Criminal trial-------Evidence---Ocular evidence and medical evidence---Preference--Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring,the same is given preference over medical evidence---Ocular account alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1996 SCMR 908; Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396; Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2010 SCMR 1025 and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460 rel.

19/09/2025

P L D 2025 Supreme Court 383
Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ AMEERUDDIN---Appellant Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2023, decided on 4th March, 2025. (Against the order/judgment dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, in Crl. A. No. 613 of 2012). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Ocular account---Visual distance---Limitations of human eye---Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted under section 302 (b), P.P.C. for qatl-iamd and sentenced to imprisonment for life on four counts---Validity--In cases involving witness testimony, prosecution must establish credibility and reliability of its witnesses---Distance from which witnesses claimed to have observed the incident with graphic details was critical in assessing truthfulness and ability of their accounts--General rule is that at a distance of 500 meters (half a kilometer), even individuals with excellent visual acuity would struggle to discern specific details of an event, particularly when incident involves rapid moments, or if it occurs in an area that is not well lit or has obstructions that could hinder vision---Eyesight of a man, even under optimal conditions, is not designed for sustained observations of minute details at such a distance---Claim of witnesses was not only a tall claim but also one that was too far-fetched to be accepted by a prudent mind---No independent corroboration to ocular account furnished by three eye-witnesses was produced by the prosecution--Burden of proof laid with prosecution and it was required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt---There was reasonable doubt regarding credibility of witnesses, primarily due to physical impossibility of observing incident from the stated distance, given the acknowledged limitations of human vision---There was insufficient evidence to support claims of prosecution regarding witnesses' ability to observe the incident from a distance of half a kilometer---Supreme Court extended benefit of doubt to accused, set aside conviction and
sentence awarded to him and acquitted him from all charges ---Appeal was allowed. A study by Nyman, Lampinen, Antfolk, Korkman, and Santtila (2019) published in Journal of Law and Human Behavior rel.
(b) Criminal trial-------Eye-witness, evidence of---Evidence disbelieved to the extent of coaccused persons---Effect---If eye-witnesses are disbelieved against some accused persons who were attributed effective roles, then same eye-witnesses cannot be believed against another accused person attributed a similar role unless such eye-witnesses receive independent corroboration regarding the other accused person. Iftikhar Hussain v. State 2004 SCMR 1185 rel.

30/08/2025

2025 S C M R 1351
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ GHAZI KHAN PATHAN and another ---Petitioners Versus The STATE ---Respondent Jail Petition No. 27 of 2019, decided on 23rd April, 2025. (Against the judgement dated 06.12.2018 passed by Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. D-90 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. D-87 of 2012).
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence--Official witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated on the front passenger seat---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life---Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed---Validity---Official witnesses were competent witnesses unless mala fide, enmity, or ulterior motive is convincingly established on the record, which, in the present case, was conspicuously absent---In fact, it had emerged on record that all the prosecution witnesses belonged to the Excise Department, whereas the accused persons were from another province and there existed no past animosity between them that may give rise to suspicion of false implication---Petition of petitioner "GK" for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. Nazir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 1299 rel.
(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence--Presumption of knowledge and constructive possession of contraband---Scope---Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated in the front passenger seat---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life---Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed---Validity--Record showed that the intercepted truck was under the control and custody of the driver, petitioner "GK", which legally amounted to his constructive possession of the narcotic recovered from the vehicle---In such circumstances, the driver was deemed responsible for the contraband found in the vehicle under his charge and it was presumed that he had knowledge of its presence---When the petitioner, "GK", was signaled to stop the vehicle, he instead accelerated, which was a clear indication of his intent to flee---Such action of speeding up in response to a police signal, strongly suggested that the petitioner "GK" had something to hide---Situation became even more telling when, upon searching the vehicle, narcotic was uncovered from secret compartments within the truck's cabin body---Petitioner "GK" not only had knowledge of the contraband but was in clear constructive possession of the contraband narcotic---In that regard, the petitioner "GK" had been rightly found guilty of committing an offence falling within the ambit of Sections 6 and 7 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and punishable under Section 9(c) of the said Act---Petition of petitioner "GK" for leave was dismissed accordingly. State v. Wallace 372 Md. 137, 812 A.2d 291 2002 and Kashif Ameer v. The State PLD 2010 SC 1052 rel.
(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence--Person seated in front passenger seat---Not aware of presence of narcotics in the vehicle---Prosecution case was that 30 kilogram charas/hashish was recovered from the truck driven by accused "GK", while accused "MK" was seated in the front passenger seat---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life---Appeal was preferred before the High Court but was dismissed---Validity---As per record, petitioner "MK" was sitting on front seat at the time of interception---As such, attributing the illicit narcotics found in the vehicle to petitioner "MK" could not be justified in the absence of any evidence linking him to the possession or control of the vehicle, as prosecution failed to provide evidence that he was aware of the narcotic in the vehicle---Since petitioner "MK" lacked a possessory right in or control over the vehicle, and it could not be inferred that he had knowledge of the narcotic---Thus, petitioner "MK" was neither conscious nor aware of the narcotic present in the vehicle---Supreme Court found no reasonable grounds to uphold his conviction---Petition of petitioner, "MK", was converted into appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and he was acquitted of the charge. Shahzada v. State 2010 SCMR 841 rel.

30/08/2025

2025 S C M R 1344
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Athar Minallah, Irfan Saadat Khan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ QURBAN ALI ---Petitioner Versus The STATE ---Respondent Jail Petition No. 403 of 2022, decided on 6th May, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 08.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Hyderabad in Criminal Jail Appeal No. D-130 of 2014 and Confirmation Case No. 28 of 2014).
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-iamd, common intention---Confessional statement, recording of--Infirmities---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of his wife, daughter and son by administering poison---Record revealed that though the accused had made a confessional statement on 31.12.2020 before the concerned Magistrate but subsequently retracted from it by stating that the police had arrested his father and other ladies and was maltreating them, so in order to save them from the clutches of the police he made the said confessional statement--According to accused, he was given an assurance by the police that if he made a confessional statement before the concerned Magistrate, the other persons implicated in the case of killing the three persons would be let off by the police---In the accused's statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., recorded by the Trial Court, while answering question No.5, the accused categorically stated that the confessional statement recorded on 31.12.2020 was under duress---Accused further explained, by answering question No.10, that he was present at a village to look after his land, where he was informed that his wife and two children had passed away---Thereafter, accused went to his home where the police arrested him---Deposition of Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the accused's confessional statement, revealed that the column of length of time of the confessional statement was left blank by him and further that he had not obtained the thumb impression of the accused on the first page of the alleged confessional statement--Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charge.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Medical evidence not supporting the prosecution case---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of his wife, daughter and son by administering poison---Medical Officers had categorically stated that Chemical Examiner's report with regard to intoxication and poisoning of the three deceased persons returned as negative---Record transpired that there was no evidence of strangulation on the bodies of the deceased persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charge.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of his wife, daughter and son---Statement of brother of deceased casted doubt on the prosecution case as according to him accused-petitioner told him that he had killed the three persons by way of throttling and strangulation whereas according to the complainant, the deceased were killed by way of poisoning---Brother of deceased also stated that three persons aided accused-petitioner in killing the deceased persons, whereas it was a matter of record that these three persons were found to be innocent and acquitted by the Court---Record showed that neither the complainant nor the brother of deceased or any other person, either of the family/neighbor etc., were eyewitnesses of the occurrence---As per record, there was no previous enmity between the family of the accused and the deceased--Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charge.
(d) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---In case of contradictions and doubts, the benefit of the same must be extended to the accused. Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State 2019 SCMR 129 rel.

Zafar Iqbal Sheikh

12/02/2026

12/02/2026

12/02/2026

12/02/2026

19/09/2025

19/09/2025

19/09/2025

30/08/2025

30/08/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category