Muhammad Maqsood vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2656 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.

Muhammad Maqsood VS State Ss. 324, 353 & 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, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Whether act of terrorism---accused were charged that they made firing on police party when they were signaled to stop, police also made firing in retaliation, as a result of which one culprit was injured---allegations against the accused were that on the fateful day aSI police along with the police party while patrolling in the area considering the accused to be suspicious signaled them to stop but instead of stopping they accelerated their motorbike and the accused sitting on the rear seat of the motorbike started firing upon the police and in retaliation the police also fired upon the accused persons---Resultantly, the accused sitting on the rear seat of the motorbike received a fire arm injury on his left leg and both the accused persons fell down and were apprehended along with unlicensed weapons, that is .30 bore pistols and a stolen motorbike---accused persons were convicted under S.7(1) (ff) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997 ('aTa, 1997')---Legality---No doubt, the offence was heinous one, however, it did not appear in subsection (2) of S.6 of the aTa, 1997, hence, the said offence did not fall within the cognizance of the anti-Terrorism Courts---Further the mode and manner of the occurrence did not suggest design of accused persons for creating fear and terror in the public rather their only aim was to flee from the scene---Mere gravity or brutal nature of an offence would not provide a valid yardstick for bringing the same within the definition of terrorism---Thus, the offences in the present case did not qualify the meanings of S.6, which is punishable under S.7 of the act---In such state of affairs, S.7 of the act was not applicable to the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Resultantly, appeal, being bereft of any merit, was accordingly dismissed---Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court, under Ss.353, 324, 34, P.P.C and under S.23(1)(a) Sindh arms act, 2013, was maintained, however, their conviction and sentence under S.7 anti-Terrorism act, 1997, was set aside. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2656 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Muhammad Maqsood VS State 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 illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C---accused were charged that they made firing on police party when they were signaled to stop, police also made firing in retaliation, as a result of which one culprit was injured---Record showed that one of the accused persons examined himself on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., and denied all the allegations as levelled against him by the prosecution, but he did not produce any witness in his defence---Strangely, the co-accused did not opt for statement on oath despite the fact that both the accused persons in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C. pleaded their innocence and claimed false implication---Since both the accused persons before the Trial Court were being represented by one and the same counsel as such, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that only one accused was advised to make such statement on oath for his innocence---Insofar as the statement of accused under S.340(2), Cr.P.C was concerned, from perusal of the statement it appeared that the defence counsel did not put questions to the prosecution witnesses in respect of the stance taken in the said statement---Furthermore, in the cross-examination the accused had very candidly admitted certain facts---In such state of affairs, the statement of the accused appeared to be an afterthought besides the fact that co-accused did not give his statement on oath discredited the said statement of accused---In the circumstances, the statement of accused on oath was of no help to the accused and co-accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Resultantly, appeal, being bereft of any merit, was accordingly dismissed---Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court, under Ss.353, 324, 34, P.P.C and under S.23(1)(a) Sindh arms act, 2013, was maintained, however, their conviction and sentence under S.7 anti-Terrorism act, 1997, was set aside. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2656 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Muhammad Maqsood VS State 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 illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account, proved---accused were charged that they made firing on police party when they were signaled to stop, police also made firing in retaliation, as a result of which one culprit was injured---Prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused persons examined 04 witnesses and all of them supported the stance of the prosecution---Defence failed to point out any material discrepancy in the evidence available on the record---Prosecution on its part had established the recovery of the weapons and stolen bike from the accused---First Information Reports were lodged promptly---From both the accused persons firearms were recovered, as deposed by the Police Officers, and were properly sealed, as such there could not be even remote apprehension of it being foisted as alleged---Further from the testimony of the Investigation Officer it was revealed that he sent the seized weapon to Forensic Science Laboratory and collected the report which supported the prosecution case---Investigation Officer also collected the criminal record of the accused persons which established that the accused persons were involved in other cases of similar nature and that witness exhibited such reports along with several other documents in support of the case of prosecution---Police witness had no motive to falsely involve the accused persons in the crime---No ill-will or any enmity was suggested during the cross-examination of all the witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Resultantly, appeal, being bereft of any merit, was accordingly dismissed---Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court , under Ss. 353, 324, 34, P.P.C and under Ss.23(1)(a) Sindh arms act, 2013, was maintained, however, their conviction and sentence under S.7 anti-Terrorism act, 1997, was set aside. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2656 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Muhammad Maqsood VS State 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 illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Police witnesses, evidence of---Scope---accused were charged that they made firing on police party when they were signaled to stop, police also made firing in retaliation, as a result of which one culprit was injured and fell down---allegedly, no private person had been cited to witness the arrest and recovery proceedings---Police officials are as good as private witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they are Police Officials, unless the defence succeeds in giving dent to the statements of prosecution witnesses and proves their mala fide or ill-will against accused, which in the present case the defence had neither been able to do nor show during cross-examination---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Resultantly, appeal, being bereft of any merit, was accordingly dismissed---Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court, under Ss.353, 324, 34, P.P.C and under S.23(1)(a) Sindh arms act, 2013 was maintained, however, their conviction and sentence under S.7 anti-Terrorism act, 1997 was set aside. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2656 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Muhammad Maqsood VS State 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 illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses---Inconsequential---accused were charged that they made firing on police party when they were signaled to stop, police also made firing in retaliation, as a result of which one culprit was injured---There were minor discrepancies in the evidence led by the prosecution---Minor discrepancies in the evidence generally occurr in each and every case, which are to be over-looked and only material contradictions are to be taken into consideration---Prosecution witnesses were reliable, trustworthy and their evidence was confidence inspiring and the court believed the same especially as they had no ill will or enmity with the accused persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Resultantly, appeal, being bereft of any merit, was accordingly dismissed---Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court, under Ss.353, 324, 34, P.P.C and under S.23(1)(a) Sindh arms act, 2013 was maintained, however, their conviction and sentence under S.7 anti-Terrorism act, 1997 was set aside.

Muhammad Maqsood vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2656 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR