Javed Shah vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 709 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.

Javed Shah VS State Ss. 324, 353, 186 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Murderous assault on police, acts of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---accused was charged that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the police party; in retaliation police also made firing due to which appellant sustained firearm; injury and co-accused ran away from the spot---Record showed that it was a case of spy information, incident had occurred on a road in thickly populated area, but no efforts were made by the police to associate private persons---as per prosecution evidence, there was cross-firing with sophisticated weapons but neither Police Officials sustained firearm injury nor damage was caused to police mobile which appeared to be unbelievable---On the other hand, appellant had sustained fire shot injury on his right leg---So far as Injury No. 2 on the person of the appellant was concerned, record reflected that it had been suppressed by the police---according to the Medical Officer, Injury No. 2 was 03 to 04 days old and was caused to the appellant with hard blunt substance---Prosecution could not explain how Injury No. 2 was sustained by the appellant---Element of terror or panic was missing in the case---Conviction and sentence under S.7 of the act 1997 was also not sustainable---Police Officials did not record or take photographs when search, seizure and arrest of the appellant was made---Moreover, it was night time incident, source of light was not mentioned by the Police Officials in their evidence and mashirnama of arrest and recovery was also silent on such aspect of the case---In the mashirnama of arrest and recovery, description had been mentioned, but evidence of Police Officials was silent on that respect---Prosecution could not explain such omission in the evidence---Safe custody and safe transmission of the pistol used in the crime had not been established before the trial Court, for the reason that prosecution failed to examine Incharge Malkhana of concerned Police Station---Investigation Officer failed to preserve the finger prints of the accused and on pistol during course of encounter---Moreover, there were also major contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on material particulars of the case---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Javed Shah vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD