The Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978
Rule 216, 218 r/w
The Pakistan Penal Code
Section 57 r/w
The Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 401
It is rightly urged that although a sentence of life imprisonment under Section 57 PPC extends to 25 years, the same is liable to reduction through remissions granted by the Executive under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and also Rule 216 and Rule 218 of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978 (“Prison Rules”). By virtue of Rule 140 of the Prison Rules, every ‘lifer-prisoner’ must undergo a minimum of fifteen years substantive imprisonment. Notionally, the Executive authorities may on that basis remit in their discretion 10 years imprisonment from the statutory sentence of a lifer-prisoner. Such remission is granted lawfully in exercise of powers vested in the Provincial Government by the aforementioned provisions of law. Reference is made to Abdul Malik v. The State (PLD 2006 SC 365). .....Amjad Shah =VS= The State, [3 LM (SC) 105] ....View Full Judgment

Dying declaration–
On the basis of a dying declaration the trial court for an offence under section 302(b), PPC and was sentenced to death and to pay compensation but on appeal his sentence of death was reduced by the High Court to imprisonment for life.
A dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule and, thus, the same is to be scrutinized with due care and caution, particularly in the backdrop of the observations made by different Courts about veracity of a dying declaration in the Province of the Punjab and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Bakhshish Singh alias Bakhshi and others v. Emperor (AIR 1925 Lahore 549), Tawaib Khan and another v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 13) and Usman Shah and others v. The State (1969 P.Cr.L.J. 317).
The prosecution had failed to prove its case against Riyat Khan appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent No. 1 namely Riyat Khan has been acquitted by this Court today upon acceptance of his Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 2010. .....Muhammad Ameer =VS= Riyat Khan (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (SC) 653] ....View Full Judgment

The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 324, 380 & 411 r/w
Cr.P.C.
Section 544-A
Converted the death sentence into life imprisonment, maintaining the fines and other punishment–
The evidence that has come on the record was sufficient to lead both the courts below to reach the conclusion that it was the appellant who had committed murder. In view of what has been discussed above, charge against the appellant has been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. This appeal having no merit is thus dismissed. .....Muhammad Saleem =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 139] ....View Full Judgment

The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section 7(a) r/w
The Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 382-B r/w
The Pakistan Penal Code
Section 302(b)
The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C shall be extended to the appellant– appeal is dismissed to the extent of the appellant’s conviction for the offence under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, his sentence passed for the said offence is reduced from death to imprisonment for life and his conviction and sentence for the offence under section 302(b), PPC are set aside. The order passed by the trial court in respect of payment of fine by the appellant as well as the order passed in respect of imprisonment in default of payment of fine are, however, maintained. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to the appellant. .....Dr. Irfan Iqbal =VS= The State, [3 LM (SC) 111] ....View Full Judgment

The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section-6(1) (b) or (c) r/w
PPC
Section-302/34
Mens rea– A private offence committed in the privacy of a home with no design or purpose contemplated by section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. We have, thus, entertained no manner of doubt that the allegations leveled against the appellant and his co-accused in the present criminal case did not attract the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung was not justified in transferring the case to an Anti-Terrorism Court and the High Court was also not legally correct in dismissing the appellant’s revision petition. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung as well as the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta are set aside and it is declared that the appellant’s case is to be tried by a court of ordinary jurisdiction. .....Khuda-e-Noor =VS= The State, [1 LM (SC) 650] ....View Full Judgment

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 382-B r/w
The Pakistan Penal Code
Section 302(b)
Benefit of doubt– This appeal is partly allowed in the terms that the sentence of death of the appellant-Amjad Shah is altered to that of life imprisonment under Section 302(b) PPC. The remaining punishment of fine and imprisonment in case of default thereof shall remain intact. He shall also be entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. .....Amjad Shah =VS= The State, [3 LM (SC) 105] ....View Full Judgment

Murder–
The appellant was convicted on two counts of an offence under section 302(b), PPC and was sentenced to death on each count and to pay compensation. The appellant challenged his convictions and sentences before the High Court through an appeal which was dismissed to the extent of his convictions on both the counts of the charge under section 302(b), PPC but the same was partly allowed to the extent of his sentences of death which were reduced by the High Court to imprisonment for life on each count.
This appeal is partly allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellant are set aside and they are substituted by his conviction on two counts of an offence under section 302(c), PPC with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for twenty (20) years on each count and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the heirs of each deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count. The sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellant shall run concurrently to each other and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to him. ...Muhammad Qasim =VS= The State, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (SC) 164] ....View Full Judgment

The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860
Section 376(1)
Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Relating to Rape) Act, 2016
The petitioner’s conviction under section 376(1) of PPC is maintained, consequently, the petitioner’s petition for leave to appeal to such extent is dismissed. However, as regards the petitioner’s sentence for the alternate punishment prescribed under section 376(1) PPC when the crime was committed the law prescribed that such sentence, ‘shall not be less than ten years or more than twenty-five years’, but the learned Judges of the High Court had sentenced him to imprisonment for life, which alternate punishment was subsequently enhanced pursuant to the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Relating to Rape) Act, 2016. If the correct law was applied the learned Judges of the High Court may have been persuaded to pass a lesser sentence. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner under section 376(1) PPC, before the section was amended. ...Farooq Ahmad =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (SC) 40] ....View Full Judgment

Dacoity–
The prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. These appeals are, therefore, allowed, the convictions and sentences of Azhar Mehmood, Muhammad Altaf, Azam Sher and Asad Ali appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to them. They shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. .....Azhar Mehmood =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 109] ....View Full Judgment

Pakistan Penal Code
Section 489-F
Cr.P.C.
Section 497
Cheques to dishonoured–– To grant post-arrest bail–– It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception. Reliance is placed on Tariq Bashir Vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). This Court in a number of cases has held that liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be taken away without exceptional foundations. Supreme Court has been informed that all the material is in documentary shape; the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. So far as the argument of the learned Law Officer about the absconsion of the petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence and the same alone cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for. Reliance is placed on Rasool Muhammad Vs. Asal Muhammad (PLJ 1995 SC 477) & Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53). ––Supreme Court converts this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. .....Noman Khaliq =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2024(2) [17 LM (SC) 5] ....View Full Judgment

Post arrest bail– Cheques dishonoured– Record shows that the petitioner has been booked in as much as eight criminal cases under the same offence with different complainants and involving sizable amounts of money. These cases span over the years 2018 to 2020 and three cases have been registered after the registration of the instant case. Even though the petitioner has obtained bail in those cases, it does, prima facie, establish that the petitioner is prone to repeating the offence. Petitioner having been declared an absconder in this case for over one and a half year generates the apprehension that the petitioner may avoid standing trial and hence delay the prosecution of the case. The facts of the instant case involve eight (8) criminal cases registered against the petitioner for the same offence against different parties and some of them have even been registered after the instant case. Additionally, the petitioner has been a proclaimed offender. Supreme Court is not inclined to interfere in the well considered findings of the High Court. Leave is, therefore, declined and this petition is dismissed. .....Muhammad Imran =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (SC) 17] ....View Full Judgment

Pakistan Penal Code
Section 489-F
Cr.P.C.
Section 497
Dishonestly issuing a cheque–– To grant pre-arrest bail–– Liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be taken away without exceptional foundations–– It is settled law that absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence and the same alone cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for–– It is settled law that grant of bail in the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception. This Court in a number of cases has held that liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be taken away without exceptional foundations. Supreme Court has been informed that all the material is in documentary shape; the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. So far as the argument of the learned Law Officer about the absconsion of the petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that absconsion cannot be viewed as a proof for the offence and the same alone cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for. Reliance is placed on Rasool Muhammad Vs. Asal Muhammad (PLJ 1995 SC 477) & Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain (PLD 2009 SC 53). Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances stated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail. .....Abdul Rasheed =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2024(1) [16 LM (SC) 3] ....View Full Judgment