Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1424 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mumtaz Ali vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1424 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mumtaz Ali VS State Ss. 324, 392, 397, 353 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 22---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, using criminal force or assault on public servant while he was performing his duty, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Test identification parade, conducting of---accused were charged for snatching motorcycle from the complainant meanwhile four Police Officials arrived there on motorcycles, who signaled the accused to stop, but they opened fire on them with intention to kill them and deter them from discharging their duty causing firearm injury to a Police Constable; in retaliation one accused received bullet injuries and he fell down and was apprehended by the police---Judicial Magistrate, who conducted identification test, had noted down that the complainant assigned clear and specific role to the appellant---Said witness had specifically mentioned that the appellant was brought before him in muffled face with handcuff in Court premises, and after removing the handcuffs and cover from the face, he was called to stand according to his own choice in the queue of dummies---Total nine dummies were there beside the appellant at the time of identification---Said witness had noted down the names of said dummies, their parentage and even their C.N.I.C. numbers and had duly appended the certificate---Said witness also faced ordeal of cross-examination at the hands of defence, however, his evidence remained unshaken---No suggestion was given to said witness that the complainant had not identified the appellant in the identification test---Moreover, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that the complainant, who was a private person and employed in a mill, would lodge false FIR against the appellant and follow him till the identification test---Nothing had been brought on record by the appellant during the trial or even before the High Court that complainant already knew him before the incident or he had any enmity with him---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1424 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mumtaz Ali vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 1424 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR