Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),324,353,395,114,148,149

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: XXVII,7

(a)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 395, 114, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, dacoity, abettor present at the time of commission of offence, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Co-accused acquitted on same set of witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of a Police Constable and robbed his official weapon---Record showed that three co-accused had already been acquitted by the trial Court by disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and conviction of the accused on same set of evidence, without independent corroboration, was not sustainable in law---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Muhammad Saleem v. The State 2010 SCMR 374; Riaz Ahmed v. The State 2010 SCMR 846; Mureed Hussain v. The State through Prosecutor General Sindh 2014 SCMR 1689 and Shahbaz v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 1719 ref.(b)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 395, 114, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, dacoity, abettor present at the time of commission of offence, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Eye-witness failing to prove his presence at the time and place of incident---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of a Police Constable and robbed his official weapon---Perusal of the station diary reflected that all the major details regarding the incident were mentioned in the dairy but the name of accused did not transpire in the station diary---However, name of the accused had been mentioned by the police in FIR---Sole eye-witness could not explain his presence at the time of incident---Said witness deposed that at the time of actual occurrence, he had gone for urinating---Eye-witness allegedly…