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

AMANULLAH vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 1681 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2022 YLR 1681 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
YLR
Parties
AMANULLAH vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 7---Q; S. 154; S. 161; Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908); Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)

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

AMANULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, attempt to cause explosion or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, possession of illegal weapons, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Improvements made by the witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons including brother-in-law of complainant by firing, causing injuries to a person and also throwing a ball cracker which could not explode---Incident was unseen and the prosecution had not been able to produce a witness within whose sight the incident occurred---Admittedly, the testimony of complainant was hearsay in nature---Complainant had resiled from his earlier statement as recorded in 154, Cr.P.C. statement and made improvement while recording his evidence at trial---Said improvement created serious doubt with regard to veracity of his evidence that why he did not mention the said facts while recording his statement under S. 154, Cr.P.C.---Complainant did not disclose the name of any person, who allegedly informed him about involvement of culprits in the commission of crime, rather he subsequently changed his version, which seemed to be an embroidery work of the complainant just to cover an unseen occurrence---Similarly, during cross-examination, complainant had admitted that he had mentioned in his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. that police had informed him about the arrest of accused persons involved in the commission of crime---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR

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