| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 910 2023 SLD 910 2023 MLD 562 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 47 and 48 of2018, decided on 2nd November, 2021. Date of hearing: 26thOctober, 2021.
Before Mohammed Karim Khan Agha and Kausar Sultana Hussain, JJ
Khalid Hashmat for Appellants (in Special A.T. Appeal No. 47 of 2018).Rawas Khan and Ms. Shabana Khan for Appellants (in Special A.T. Appeal No. 48 of 2018).Abrar Ali Khichi, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Special A.T. Appeals
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 47 and 48 of2018, decided on 2nd November, 2021. Date of hearing: 26thOctober, 2021.
Before Mohammed Karim Khan Agha and Kausar Sultana Hussain, JJ
Khalid Hashmat for Appellants (in Special A.T. Appeal No. 47 of 2018).Rawas Khan and Ms. Shabana Khan for Appellants (in Special A.T. Appeal No. 48 of 2018).Abrar Ali Khichi, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Special A.T. Appeals
NADEEM alias MANGA and others-----AppellantsVersusThe STATE-----Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),324,114,34
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 40
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 114, 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Disclosure of accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Except identification parade, pointation of place of occurrence by the accused and the disclosure by accused by themselves, no other tangible evidence was on record against them---Pointation of the wardat by the accused after the commission of the crime was of no relevance as the police already knew where the wardat took place---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Hayatullah v. The State 2018 SCMR 2092 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 114, 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Confession before police---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Confession of the accused persons before the police that they committed the murder was inadmissible in evidence---No effort was made by the police to record the confession of the accused persons under S. 164, Cr.P.C., before a Judicial Magistrate despite their being produced before a Judicial Magistrate for an identification parade---In the present case, it did not appeal to logic, reason or common sense that the accused whilst in custody in a non-capital punishment case would admit to their involvement in such case without their being a shred of evidence against them for that offence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 114, 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.…
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