Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: XLV,302(b),397,34

Law: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979

Section: VI,17(4)

Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, (XXIII of 2013)

Section: 15

Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: VI,4

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: XXVII,7

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: V,417,410

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.4---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Qatl-iamd, murder with dacoity, common intention, haraabah, possession of illicit weapons, recovery of explosive substance, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused were charged for attacking an official pickup carrying Police Officials with hand grenade, Kalashnikovs and other firearm weapons which caused death of five Police Officials while injuries to two Constables and robbed cash and Kalashnikovs of the police with ammunition and pocket phone---Entire episode of the murder and dacoity had been witnessed by injured witness who was also complainant of the instant case and Head Constable, who was also injured during the occurrence---Complainant in his examination-inchief stated that he along with the injured and dead bodies were brought to the hospital by public through private vehicles where he reported the matter to S.I. who was Investigating Officer of the case---Inspector stated that complainant reported the matter to him which he reduced to writing in shape of murasila--Similarly, FIR also revealed that murasila was sent by Additional SHO--Narration of facts of the incident by the complainant which were incorporated in shape of murasila depicted contradiction between the statements of complainant and Inspector which was fatal to the case of prosecution--Deposition of complainant clearly suggested that he had not seen the present respondents firing on them---Interestingly the respondents were not among those who were identified by the witnesses for firing at the time of occurrence and while recording their statements before the Trial Court---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.Shera Masih and another v. The State PLD 2002 SC 643 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Offences Against Property…

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