| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 542 2019 SLD 542 2019 YLR 613 |
Sindh High Court
Spl. Criminal ATA Appeals Nos. 70, 71, 79 and 80 of 2017, decision Dated: 09-02-2018.
OMAR SIAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Dur Muhammad Shah (in Spl. Cr. A.T.As. Nos.70 and 71 of 2017).
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Iqbal Awan, D.P.G.
Spl. Criminal ATA Appeals Nos. 70, 71, 79 and 80 of 2017, decision Dated: 09-02-2018.
OMAR SIAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Dur Muhammad Shah (in Spl. Cr. A.T.As. Nos.70 and 71 of 2017).
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Iqbal Awan, D.P.G.
ABID AND ANOTHER
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,324,353,392
Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013
Section: 23(1)(a)
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 392, 353, & 34---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, act of terrorism, possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that accused persons along with another came on a motorcycle, duly armed, and robbed Rs. 7000 and a mobile phone from two off-duty policemen, while they were sitting in their car waiting for a colleague to join them---Shootout allegedly took place between the accused persons and the two off-duty policemen and a police party in a mobile, which had subsequently arrived on the scene hearing the earlier gun fire---Both the accused persons sustained fire arm injuries during the encounter and were arrested, whereas their third accomplice made his escape good---Unlicensed pistols were recovered from the two injured accused persons---Allegedly, three accused fired directly at the occupants of the car and then at the police mobile from a relatively short distance, yet no damage was caused to the complainant's car or the police mobile or any nearby property nor did they manage to hit the person of either occupant or the police party---Recovery witnesses testified that the case property was sealed on the spot by one of the witnesses, but the first Investigating Officer had testified that when he received the case property from the witness, the same was in an unsealed condition except the pistol---Police Officer/victim testified that the wallet and cash looted from him was produced at trial in an unsealed condition---Memo. of arrest and recovery showed that six live bullets were recovered from both the accused---Forensic Science Laboratory report also showed that six live bullets were sent for examination---Police Officer/victim had admitted at trial that eight live bullets were available as case property before the court---Emerging eight live bullets at trial as case property was never explained when the memo of recovery and Forensic Science Laboratory report both showed that…
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