Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 324,353,225,337A(i),337F(i),337H(2),147,148,149

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: V,24

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: XXVII,7

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 162

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 324, 353, 225, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 24---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, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism--Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses--Accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made assault upon the police party with hatchets and clubs, due to which Police personnel sustained injuries---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by three witnesses--Complainant deposed verbatim the FIR---Said witness stated that he managed to dodge two bullets during a close quarter scuffle, managed to disarm the assailant by swiftly ejecting the magazine from the pistol held by the said assailant and managed to escape unscathed---Incident was to be viewed with skepticism from the very inception because the case set out at best would have been of ineffective firing even if the prosecution's version was accepted and the likelihood of the other injuries being managed was almost certain---According to the complainant, three people were armed with pistols---Of those three, one was arrested by the heroic efforts of complainant while the other two were shown to have just fired in the air despite seeing their companion being caught---Prosecution's second eye-witness, a Police Official presented a chronology of events that contradicted the initial account---Most notably, said witness asserted that accused fired two shots directly at complainant, prompting him to intervene and disarm him---This contradicted complainant's own version in which the shot allegedly did not miss but was deflected at close range and that he ejected the pistol magazine prior to the second shot---Another eye-witness contradicted the depositions of complainant and Head…