Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 324, 353, 186, 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, 186 & 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, use of criminal force or assault on public servant while he is performing his duty, obstructing a public servant in the performance of their duties, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged that he made firing upon the police party; in retaliation police also made firing due to which appellant sustained firearm injury and was apprehended at the spot---Record showed that 30 bore pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant was, in fact, the very weapon used in the commission of the offence---On that premise, the Trial Court upheld the applicability of S.353, P.P.C and 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013---Insofar as S.324, P.P.C was concerned, it was observed that the offence was constituted not merely by the resultant injury, but by the existence of the requisite mens rea to commit qatl-i-amd coupled with an overt act in furtherance thereof---Prosecution case was that the appellant, upon being signaled to stop, opened direct fire upon the police party and, during the ensuing exchange, sustained a firearm injury on his right leg, while crime empties were secured from the spot---Prosecution witnesses had remained consistent on the essential features of the occurrence, namely, the alleged firing by the appellant, the encounter, his injury, apprehension at the spot and the recovery of the unlicensed weapon from his possession---Certain discrepancies were highlighted by the defence with respect to peripheral details---However, upon independent scrutiny of the record, such inconsistencies could be treated as minor in nature, not going to the root of the case, and insufficient to dislodge the prosecution version regarding the occurrence, arrest and alleged recovery---Such discrepancies did not materially impair the evidentiary substratum of the prosecution case---Thus, convictions under S.353 P.P.C and S.23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 were maintained---Appeal was…