Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 324, 353 . 34

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: 23(1)(a)

(a)   Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 324, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Infirmities in the prosecution case---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the police party when they were signaled to stop, complainant in retaliation also fired on them, resultantly, one of the appellant sustained injury on his left leg-calf and fell down and both the accused were apprehended by the police---Despite exchange of fires between appellants and police party, neither any Police Official or person from the public sustained any firearm injury nor the police mobile was damaged---Complainant and Investigating Officer had admitted said facts---Moreover, the incident had allegedly occurred at 10.25 pm on a busy commercial road but no person from the locality and public was associated as witness---Head Constable/eye-witness had admitted in cross-examination that the complainant did not make any effort to associate private persons from the locality as witness---Said witness had also admitted that at the time of incident a shop was opened---Police Official/witness had deposed that on receiving information about the police encounter, he reached the place of incident, where complainant handed over to him Medico-Legal Letter along with the injured, and he then shifted injured to Civil Hospital--Admitted position that Medico-Legal Letter bore the seal of the Police Station--Said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that the said complainant was carrying with him the seal of Police Station at the time of incident---No plausible explanation in that regard was available on record, which led to inference that the injured appellant was not taken to hospital from alleged place of incident but from the Police Station---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants/accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Umair and others v. The State 2017 YLR 1097 rel.