House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death---Reappraisal of evidence

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 1327 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : NOOR AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302(b) & 449---Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant party alleged that the accused murdered their sister on her refusal to give her hand in marriage to the accused---Accused contended that the family of deceased itself was responsible for her murder due to her ill virtues and her legated property---Held, that prosecution claimed that deceased was a virgin, however, autopsy findings suggested a carnal encounter not long before she met homicidal death---In such circumstances it was difficult to dismiss the contentions raised by the accused in his defence ---Similarly, going by the motive alleged in the crime report, the family members who rescinded the proposal were more apt targets than the deceased---By extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused, appeal was allowed, and his conviction and sentence was set aside.

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 1029 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : LAHORE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION
Side Opponent : GENERAL (RETD.) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF
S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Trial for high treason---Constitution of Special Court---Accused delaying conclusion of trial by remaining a fugitive and absenting himself from court---Complaint against the accused was filed on 12-12-2013 before the Special Court, the charge was framed on 31-3-2014 and the prosecution evidence was closed on 18-9-2014 and since then the matter was dragging on due to absence of the accused---Significance, gravity and solemnity of the proceedings before the Special Court could not be undermined by delaying the trial due to non-appearance of the accused---Section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976 ('the Act') envisaged that once the trial had begun, the trial shall not be adjourned by reason of absence of any accused person due to illness, or if the absence of the accused or his counsel had been brought about by the accused person himself , or if the behavior of the accused person prior to such absence had been, in the opinion of the Special Court, such as to impede the course of justice---Section 9, Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, mandated that the Special Court shall proceed with the trial after taking necessary steps to appoint an advocate to defend any such accused person---Section 9 was, therefore, an extension of the procedure for trial provided under S. 6 of the said Act and supported the purpose of the special law---Within the scope of the Act, if the accused voluntarily choose not to exercise his right to appear and to be present at trial, it did not infringe the fairness of the trial nor did it violate the right to fair trial under Art. 10A of the Constitution---To stop further proceedings of the trial, in such a situation, would amount to putting a premium on the fault of the absconder---Besides the control over the proceedings of the trial could not be allowed to vest in the accused---Accused, in the present case, was not merely absenting himself from attending the Special Court, he had also been declared a proclaimed offender---Being a fugitive from the law, the accused had lost the right to have an advocate appointed to defend him unless and until the accused surrendered before the court---In the context of the Act, if the accused voluntarily choose not to appear or join the proceedings, he lost his right to an explanation in terms of S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Supreme Court directed that the Special Court shall proceed with the trial on the next date of hearing; that in case the accused surrendered and appeared before the Court he would be entitled to record his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and lead any other defence under the law, however, in case the accused failed to appear on the next date of hearing, being a proclaimed offender, the Special Court was empowered to proceed against the accused even in his absence under S. 9 of the Act---Case adjourned.

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 640 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : DIRECTORATE GENERAL EMERGENCY RESCUE SERVICE 1122 KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR
Side Opponent : NIZAKAT ULLAH
Reglns. 43, 45(2) & 50---Dismissal from service---Due process not followed---No permission provided to cross-examine witnesses---Where an employee was to be removed from service, which action obviously carried a stigma with it, he was entitled to due process which included fair opportunity to defend himself , cross-examine the witnesses and produce evidence in his defence ---Further, he must be confronted with the material on the basis of which he had been issued show cause notice---Employee in question was deprived of his due process rights; he was not confronted with the material on the basis of which the show cause notice had been issued to him and he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who were produced by his employer---Allegation against the employee was that he had quarrelled with his seniors and sent abusive and threatening SMS messages to them, and generally indulged in disorderly behavior---Neither evidence of any obnoxious SMS messages allegedly sent by the employee to his senior officers was placed on record nor was he provided an opportunity to cross-examine any witness that the employer may have produced---Further, there was no evidence that the employee had misbehaved with anybody or refused to perform his duty---Process followed by the employer in dismissing the employee was sketchy, one sided, non-transparent and not supported even by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Emergency Rescue Services Regulations, 2015 and the law---High Court had rightly reinstated the employee in service with all back benefits---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 372 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MALIK DIN
Side Opponent : CHAIRMAN NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU
S. 9(a)(vi)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25---Administrator of Housing Society---Misuse of authority in allotting and converting plots---Criminal jurisprudence---defence ---Discrimination, plea of---Contention on behalf of accused that the action of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against him was discriminatory, as it had singled him out to the exclusion of the other hundreds of housing societies mentioned in the complaint letter sent to NAB by the Standing Committee of the Senate---Held, that it was a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that challenging prosecution on the ground of discrimination by the State could not be a complete valid defence to absolve an accused from criminal liability arising from his actions or inactions---Any person charged for a crime was answerable for his own acts or omissions and had to defend himself in a trial for the said charged offence---Plea of discrimination raised by accused was legally incorrect.