Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 324/353/148/149

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7(b),9(b),25

Law: Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 22

Law: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, (XX of 1965)

Section: 13

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324/353/148/149---Anti-'Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7(b), 9(b) & 25---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.22---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of arms and ammunitions were made from the possession of accused persons which was duly witnessed by marginal witness of the recovery, who had fully supported the case of the prosecution---All the prosecution witnesses had faced the test of lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but nothing favourable to accused persons had come out from their mouths---Defence had failed to shatter the case of the prosecution---Prosecution witnesses were all unanimous on all material points---Medical Officer who had examined accused who resisted his arrest and during the scuffle between the Police party and accused had sustained injuries, his medico legal report also supported the case of the prosecution---Both accused persons and absconding co-accused had attempted to commit robbery and to loot the passengers sitting inside the Bus and they had created terror and panic in the whole surroundings area---Empties had been recovered during the spot inspection, which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and its report was in positive---Accused had failed to produce any documentary proof with regard to the recovered arms and ammunitions---Accused were reasonably linked with the commission of the offence charged with---Prosecution had been able to prove its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt---Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly appraised the evidence brought on record---Impugned judgment of the Trial Court based on correct legal footings and correct appraisal of evidence, could not be set at naught by High Court---Counsel for accused had failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence so as to create a dent in the case of the prosecution, or legal infirmity, perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction which was accordingly maintained. Abdul Rashid and others v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 186 and…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492