Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 2199 2026 SLD 2199 = 2026 PCRLJ 630
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 95 of 2024, decided on 22nd October, 2025.
Presented By: Omar Sial and Syed Fiaz-ul-Hassan Shah, JJ
   Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar for Appellant.        Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.        Court assisted by: Saleem Nasir, Research Officer.

UBAID alias K-2---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b), 324, 353, 147, 148 , 149

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7, 19(10)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 47

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Murderous assault on police, acts of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of a Sepoy by firing and caused firearm injuries to a Hawaldar---Evidence led at trial reflected that, at best, the prosecution was able to prove that appellant was present in the mob of people that allegedly attacked the law enforcers---Nobody saw the appellant armed, nor did anybody except one witness say that appellant had fired upon them---Thus, the testimony of said witness did not inspireconfidence or appeared trustworthy---Said witness stated that the gunfire directed at the law enforcers originated from the tops of buildings, whereas the appellant was seen on the ground---Suppose a person sought to be convicted by the Court was, in fact, involved in the commission of the offence as alleged by the complainant; in that case, the pertinent question was whether any of the prosecution witnesses had assigned appellant a specific role in the entire occurrence---In the absence of any such attribution in conformity with the requirements of law, the conviction of that person could not be sustained---Furthermore, the complete absence of any blood at the scene, coupled with the fact that the appellant was neither arrested at the spot nor had his specific role been clearly described by the witnesses-who merely stated that he was accompanied by a co-accused-and the lack of recovery of any weapon from him to corroborate the ocular account, collectively created reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person---Said circumstances raised serious concerns about whether the incident occurred as alleged by the complainant in the FIR, thereby casting substantial doubt on the prosecution's version of events---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 19(10)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 47---Murderous assault on police, acts of terrorism---Appreciation of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register