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

YAQOOB KHAN vs The ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO — 2022 YLRN 142 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2022 YLRN 142 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2022
Parties
YAQOOB KHAN vs The ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 23; S. 7---; S. 342

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

YAQOOB KHAN VS The ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.II, KARACHI Ss. 324, 353 & 34---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)a---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, possessing unlicensed weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime weapons and other incriminating material from the possession of accused---Reliance---Scope---Prosecution case was that on spy information, police party tried to apprehend the criminals, on seeing the police party, they made firing upon the police party, in retaliation, police also made firing, however, three accused were apprehended but two escaped---Record showed that at the time of arrest of accused, apart from alleged recovery of weapons, sixteen (16) mobile phones, three (3) wrist watches, photocopies of CNICs, one cap on which BaSF was written, wallets and some cash amounts were also recovered from their possession in presence of police officials, however, said fact had been denied by the accused in their statements recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. and stated that nothing was recovered from them and the cases were out of the result of enmity as the accused filed constitutional petition against the police officials, therefore, their false implication in those cases could not be ruled out---Complainant in his cross-examination had admitted that he had not given detailed descriptions of the items allegedly recovered from the accused in the memo of arrest and recovery---Evidence of complainant showed that Investigating Officer of the case had not properly conducted the investigation---Investigating Officer not only failed to dig out source from whom accused snatched said articles as alleged, but also failed to trace out the record as to whom said mobiles belonged---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

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