PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

KARIM vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 44 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2022 PCrLJN 44 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2022
Parties
KARIM vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 7---S; S. 23

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

Judgment text as reported

KARIM VS State Ss. 324, 392, 353, 427 & 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, robbery, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his public duty, mischief causing damage to amount of fifty rupees, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed weapon---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused by force of weapon snatched purse and used mobile phone of complainant and went away---In the meantime, police mobile came there and complainant stopped said police mobile and narrated the facts, who took the complainant and Police Officials chased the accused---Complainant pointed out the accused persons to the police that they had robbed his belongings---On seeing police party, accused started firing upon them with intention to commit their qatl-i-amd and police also fired in their defence---Police succeeded in apprehending the accused---Prosecution had examined four witnesses including complainant---Said witnesses had supported the prosecution case---Complainant in his evidence had narrated the detail of incident and also identified all the accused to be the same culprits---Complainant had also supported the recovery of robbed articles i.e. used mobile phone, purse containing Rs.600/-, CNIC and the weapons allegedly used in the encounter from the possession of accused---Complainant was cross-examined at length, however, defence had failed to extract any material favourable to the accused---Evidence of complainant was corroborated by the members of patrolling police party, who chased the culprits and apprehended them on the pointation of complainant---Police Officials were also cross-examined but nothing had come on record to cause even slight doubt in prosecution case---accused had failed to place on record any documentary evidence, which could suggest that the accused had any inimical terms with the complainant party---On the other hand, it had come on record that the accused had remained indulged in number of criminal cases and that fact was evident from their criminal history available on record---Prosecution evidence was confidence inspiring and credible and the prosecution witnesses were trustworthy---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English