Citation Name: 2025 YLR 517 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nadir 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 517 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nadir VS State Ss. 324, 353, 427 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---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, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, common intention, possession of unlicensed weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Infirmities in prosecution evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused in furtherance of their common intention deterred the police party from discharging its lawful duty as public servants by firing at them intending to commit their murder by resorting to terrorism; police also made firing at accused in self defence, due to which one of the accused sustained firearm injury---Record showed that no Police Official sustained fire shot injury during the alleged armed encounter though it was a direct one, which did not appeal to logic and appeared to be doubtful---Police witness who had prepared the memo of arrest and recovery had not been examined by the prosecution for the reason that he had been dismissed from service---By such act, valuable piece of evidence had been withheld by the prosecution which had prejudiced the appellants in their defence seriously---Even otherwise, in absence of author, not much reliance could legally be placed upon memo of arrest and recovery---Incharge of Malkhana had not been examined by the prosecution---Examination of said witness was essential to prove the safe custody of the property allegedly secured from the appellants---Person who intimated the Police Officials about the presence of the appellants at the place of the incident had not been cited as a witness; such omission on the part of the prosecution could not be overlooked---Report of the forensic expert was silent concerning the description of the pistols allegedly secured from the appellants mentioned in the memo of arrest and recovery---Such inconsistency could not be overlooked, which suggested manipulation of the pistols allegedly secured from the appellants---One of the motorcycles which the police party had and which allegedly sustained damage during the course of the encounter had never been produced at the trial and its non-production could not be ignored---No independent person was associated by the Investigating Officer to witness the preparation of the memo of the place of the incident, which was essential to maintain transparency---No blood mark was found at the place of the incident which suggested that the incident had taken place in a manner other than the one alleged by the prosecution---Contention of the appellants that the they had been involved in the case falsely by the police by foisting upon them unlicensed weapons to save them from legal consequences for causing fire shot injury to one of them could not be ignored---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 517 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Nadir vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 517 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR