SALAHUDDIN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1423 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.

SALAHUDDIN VS State Ss. 324, 353, 224, 225 & 35---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, resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension, police encounter, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---accused were charged for making firing upon a police party when they were taking proclaimed offender; the police retaliated and during the encounter a Police Constable sustained firearm injury---Record showed that complainant had described the entire incident but had not specifically implicated accused for causing injury to Police Constable nor the same fact was mentioned in the FIR---Other witness had also not given name of accused and had stated that from firing of the accused, Police Constable had sustained an injury above left eye---apparently during the trial, other prosecution witnesses had made improvements in their evidence, in so far as role of accused was concerned---It was alleged by the prosecution that accused was armed with a pistol on the day of incident and from him a .30-bore pistol was recovered, which admittedly discharged the bullet and not the pellets---However, C.T scan report of the injured indicated that the victim was not hit by a bullet but by pellets, which was a sufficient circumstance to doubt the role alleged against accused---Said witness in his evidence had further revealed that the arrested accused was handed over to the victim and all the Police personnel also made aerial firing---However, it was not the prosecution case that absconder accused was handed over to Police Constable after arrest and in the face of direct firing from the accused, the police had resorted to aerial firing---Said witness had also contradicted SHO over preparation of memo by stating that it was prepared by said Inspector in his and a Police Constable's presence, whereas SHO had said that it was written by a Police Constable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt--- appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

SALAHUDDIN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1423 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ