SHAHJAHAN alias ARMAN vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 104 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SHAHJAHAN alias ARMAN VS State Ss. 392, 397, 435, 353, 324, 427 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(b), 6(2)(c), 6(2)(n), 6(2)(ee) & 7---Explosive Substances act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4---Pakistan arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 76---Robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, mischief by fire or explosive substance, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to property, common intention, grievous violence against a person, grievous damage to property, serious violence against the member of police force, possession of explosive substance without lawful justification, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, possession of unlicensed arms, cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictory evidence---Safe custody of case property---Scope---accused persons were alleged to have entered a Bank by showing weapons; snatched a certain sum of amount and caused injury to four police officials and three passers-by---all accused persons, even those who were seriously injured, were shown having pistols in their hands at the time of their arrest---Only one out of three passers-by was examined, who deposed the he was a shopkeeper and at the time of incident he was present in his shop and that incident took place on 16.6.2010 while as per FIR it happened on 3.6.2010---Bank employees failed to identify the accused persons as the culprits---Manager of the Bank gave evidence against the prosecution, though he was declared hostile but his deposition could not be rehabilitated even up to some extent---One of the customers of the Bank, who was shown as a witness, did not identify the accused persons as the culprits---Police official, who received information about the robbery, contradicted the time of incident---Witnesses were not in agreement about the looted amount---Medico-legal officer produced photocopies of the Medico-Legal Certificate and admitted that original document was required to be produced but he was unaware about what happened to the original one---Production of secondary evidence without establishing the fate of primary document was not admissible---Place of incident was not mentioned in any of the statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Nothing was mentioned about the safe custody of the case property---Prosecution case was not free from doubt, as such, the appellants were acquitted from the charge---appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

SHAHJAHAN alias ARMAN vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 104 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported