Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1839 2020 SLD 1839 2020 MLD 1329
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 276, 288 and289 of 2016, decision Dated: 30-10-2019, hearing Date :23-10-2019
MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Riaz for Appellant (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 276 of 2016).Mohammad Iqbal Awan, DPG for
Respondent/State (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos.276, 288 and 289 of 2016).Shaukat Hayat for Appellant (in Special Cri

AZHAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERSVSTHE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,34

Law: Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965

Section: 13-D

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7(1)(a)

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Quality---Prosecution has to prove its case by producing confidence inspiring and trustworthy evidence---Sole evidence of material witness is always sufficient to establish guilt of accused, if the same is confidence inspiring and trustworthy supported by other independent source of evidence---Law requires quality of evidence and not quantity to prove the charge. 2013 PCr.LJ 783; Namoos Khan and another v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 34; Behram v. The State 2015 YLR 150 and Niaz-ud-Din and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 725 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13-D--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997). S. 7(1)(a)---Qatl-i-amd, recovery of firearm, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Police witnesses---Police officials were as good as private witnesses and their testimony could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were police officials, unless the defence would succeed in giving dent to the statements of prosecution witnesses and prove their mala fide or ill-will against accused---All witnesses supported the case of prosecution---Ocular evidence was supported by medical evidence so also circumstantial evidence---Incident was day time and there was no mistake in identification of accused---Arrest of one accused from spot with crime weapon used in commission of offence, recovery of crime weapon and crime empties supported by Forensic Science Laboratory report, presence of absconded accused at the time of offence duly armed with iron rod was evident from Close Circuit Television footage and CD exhibited in evidence, showed that prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt---High Court declined to interfere in the conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court to accused persons---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Waris Ali and 5 others v. The State 2017 SCMR 1572 and Province of Punjab through Secretary Punjab Public Prosecution Department and another v. Muhammad Rafique and others PLD 2018 SC 178; Gulfam and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 1189; 2019 PCr.LJ 569 and 2013 PCr.LJ 783 ref. Shahbaz Masih v. The State 2007 SCMR 1631; Ghaus Bux…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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