| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 350 2024 SLD 350 2024 MLD 134 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal Nos. 199, 205and Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 212 of 2020,decision dated: 2nd March, 2022.Date of hearing: 23rdFebruary, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ
Habib-ur-Rehman Jiskani for Appellant (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal Nos. 199, 205 and Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 212 of 2020).Abrar Ali Khichchi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State (in Special Criminal Anti-
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal Nos. 199, 205and Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 212 of 2020,decision dated: 2nd March, 2022.Date of hearing: 23rdFebruary, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ
Habib-ur-Rehman Jiskani for Appellant (in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal Nos. 199, 205 and Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 212 of 2020).Abrar Ali Khichchi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State (in Special Criminal Anti-
ABDULLAH and others---AppellantsVSThe STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 324,353,34
Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013
Section: 23(1)(a)
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 186 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---General allegations---Common intention not established---Prosecution case was that an encounter took place between the police and four assailants, due to which, one of the accused received a firearm injury on his left shoulder---Record showed that allegations levelled against the accused "A" were collective, i.e. that the four assailants attacked upon the police party---Only general allegations surfaced after a perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses as well and nothing was brought on record to establish a solid role played by the present accused in the commission of the offence---Present accused was empty handed when he was apprehended and prosecution failed to prove that he had any connection whatsoever with the other assailants who had attacked upon the police party---Mere presence of an accused person at the place of incident could never be sufficient to establish that said accused shared common intention in the commission of an offence unless evidence was brought on record to prove so---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden against the said accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction against the said accused was accordingly allowed. Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Asmatullah and others v. The State 2018 PCr.LJ 1042; Muhammad Tufail v. The State 2017 SCMR 1845 and Asif and another v. The State 2020 SCMR 610 ref. Hassan v. The State 1969 SCMR 454 and Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 353, 186 & 34---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty,…
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