| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1016 2018 SLD 1016 2018 PCRLJ 276 |
Cr.A. No. 39 of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 26-04-2017.
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, JUSTICE
Jehanzeb Khan for Appellants. Malik Sherbaz, Dy. A.G. for the State.
ATTA-UR-REHMAN AND ANOTHER
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 337-D, 353, 224 & 186---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(c)---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13(d)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing jaifah, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, obstructing public servant in discharge of public function, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed weapon--- Appreciation of evidence--- Sentence, reduction in---Prosecution case was that complainant party (police officials) made a raid in order to arrest absconders involved in another case but they opened fire on the security forces with firearms, resultantly a police official received bullet injury on his right leg---Bullet fire of accused crossed from the uniform of another police official---Police officials opened fire in their defence---Accused ran away firing on security forces and on chase police apprehended accused-appellants, while a proclaimed offender escaped from the place of occurrence---Fear, insecurity and terror spread in the area due to the act of accused---Ocular account was furnished by prosecution witnesses including complainant and injured---Statements and narration of said witnesses was in line with the prosecution case---Despite lengthy cross-examination, their statement could not be shattered---Ocular account was corroborated by the statement of Medical Officer, who verified the factum of giving first aid to the injured and time given in injury sheet coincided with the time of occurrence---During the cross-examination, neither the time of sustaining the gun shot injury by injured was challenged nor it was suggested that it was self-inflicted---Motor bike, allegedly used in the commission of offence was taken into possession by the prosecution---Medical Officer/witness examined the injured but neither had given any specification of the injury, as to whether same was "jaifah or ghayr-jaifah" nor the treatment papers or opinion of Medical Officer was available on record to sustain conviction under S. 337-D, Penal Code, 1860, which was set aside---Trial Court had taken a very harsh and rigid view…
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