Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 PCRLJ 196
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-12-31
Parties: Muhammad Asif @ Katto vs The State
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court on 2024-12-31, officially reported as 2024 PCRLJ 196. In this matter between Muhammad Asif @ Katto and The State, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2024 PCRLJ. 196
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Ms. Tasneem Sultana Title: Muhammad Asif @ Katto vs The State Case No.:Crl. Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 77of 2024 & Confirmation Case No. 03 of
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2025 SHC KHI 2101 Result: Appeal Dismissed Judgment
JUDGMENT TASNEEM SULTANA, J: By this common judgment we intend to dispose of aforementioned Criminal A.T.A. Jail Appeal and Confirmation Reference No.03/2024 as required under Section 374 Cr.P.C. sent by the trial Court as the same being arisen out of the same and connected FIRs have been heard by us together. 2. Through the instant Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal; the Appellant namely Muhammad Asif @ Katto has assailed the Judgment dated 24.04.2024, passed by the learned Anti-Terrorism Court No.XX, Karachi (Trial Court), in Special Case No.35 of 2021 arisen out of FIR No.370 of 2015 under Sections 302, 324, 397, 109, 34 PPC read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA), and Special Case No.35-A of 2021 arisen out of FIR No.492 of 2016 under Section 23(i)a of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, respectively, at P.S. Zaman Town, Karachi, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 265-H(ii) Cr.P.C. as under: For offence under section7(1)(a) of ATA 1997 r/w section 302(b) PPC accused Asif Katoo is awarded sentence to death for murder of four police officials deceased ASI Aqeel Ahmed, PC Mohammad Anwar, PC Jameel Ahmed and PC Mohammad Akhtar and he is ordered to be hanged by neck four count till he is dead with forfeiture of his property also as required u/s 7(2) of ATA 1997. The accused is also ordered to pay the fine of Rs: 200,000/- (two lac) on account of each murder, in case of default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo R.I for six months. For offence under section 397 PPC accused to undergo R.I for 07 (seven years) and fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand only) in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo R.I
---
## Page 2
for 03 (three) months. For offence under section 7(i)(b) ATA Act, R/w section 324 PPC accused to undergo R.I for 05 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- in default of payment of fine accused shall further undergo S.I for 6 (Six) months. For offence under section 23(i)(a), Sindh Arms Act accused to suffer R.I for 05 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- in default of payment of fine the accused shall suffer further S.I three months." All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 382(b) Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.08.2015 at about 13:45 hours the accused/appellant Muhammad Asif @ Katto alongwith deceased co-accused namely Muhammad Bilal and Abdul Salem in furtherance of their common intention with collaboration of accused Faheem Ahmed Lodhi fired on police party who were taking lunch inside the Hanif Nihari Hotel situated at Sector G-Area, Korangi 50/B, Korangi 5-1/2, Karachi and caused Qatl-e-Amd; of ASI Aqeel Ahmed, PC Mohammad Anwar, PC Jameel Ahmed and PC Mohammad Akhtar by giving them firearm injuries and also caused injury to one Muhammad Asif Khan and the owner of Hanif Nihari Hotel namely Mohammad Raees. The appellant along with co-accused while leaving the place of incident had taken away the official weapons of the said police party and fled away from 'the spot. SIP Tariq Mehmood recorded facts of above incident in terms of his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Later on duty officer Safdar Watto lodged FIR. 4. Investigation was handed over to DSP Waheed Khan who visited place of incident, prepared memo of inspection, recorded statement of P.Ws under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ASI Ashraf Qaimkhani visited JPMC, where he conducted proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. of four slain police officials obtained postmortem reports and cause of death, empties were sent for FSL report. 5. On 13.03.2016 I.O. received information that eight terrorists had been killed during an encounter from whom some official SMG(s) were secured. Thereafter, I.O./ DSP along with eyewitness visited to P.S. Steel Town where they found that all terrorists were lying in dead condition and eyewitness identified two of them as Mohammad Bilal and Abdul Salam, who along with their accomplice/accused Muhammad Asif @ Kalto (appellant) had committed the murder of abovementioned police officials at hotel. Thereafter, I.O. secured one official SMG bearing registration No.29006 from the deceased accused Abdul Salam under memo of identification (Ex:20/A). After completing usual investigation he submitted report under Section 173 Cr,P.C. (challan) under "A" Class. 6. Thereafter, the investigation of this case was transferred to DSP Mehmood Hussian Raja. On 12.08.2016 he received an information that an accused namely Muhammad Asif alias Katoo (appellant) had been arrested in Case/Crime No 280/2014 under Sections 302/324/34 PPC read with Section 7 of ATA 1997 of P S Zaman Town. Thereafter, I.O. /DSP Mehmood Hussain Raja along with eyewitness namely Mohammad Races went to P.S. Khokharapar and after reaching there he had taken out the custody of accused Muhammad Asif alias Katoo from lockup and thoroughly interrogated him in presence of eye witness. The accused admitted his guilt before the I.O. and eye witness, therefore, DSP Mehmood Hussain Raja arrested the appellant in present crime. The eye witness Muhammad Raees was mashir of memo of arrest. 7. On 16.08.2016 I.O. produced the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-XVI Karachi East for his identification parade where he was identified through eye witnesses namely Muhammad Asif and PC Mushtaq Ahmed. 8. On 22,08.2016 the appellant led police to an abandoned snooker club and discovered crime weapon along with 20 live bullets hidden under rubble. Appellant was arrested under memo of arrest arid seizer (Ex:13/A). Thereafter FIR No.492/2016 registered at P.S. Zaman Town under Section
---
## Page 3
23(1)(a) Sindh Arms Act, 2013. Appellant also disclosed the name of his facilitator co-accused namely Faheem Lodhi regarding his involvement in this case. 9. After completion of usual investigation the police submitted the supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant and co-accused. The necessary documents in compliance of Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. were provided to appellant. An application under Section 21-M of the ATA, 1997 was moved by Deputy District Public Prosecutor for amalgamation of both the cases for joint trial, which was allowed the Trial Court, vide order dated 04.01.2017. The trial Court framed the formal charge against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. At the trial, prosecution examined twenty witnesses. PW.1, SIP Raja Tariq Mehmood at Ex: 10, he produced his statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C at Ex: 10-A, memo of inspection of the place of incident at Ex: 10-B. PW-02 SIP Mohammad Safdar, at Ex: 11, he produced copy of FIR at Ex: 11-A and, DD entry No: 22 at Ex: 11-B. PW-03 Asif Ali, Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate 14th East Karachi, at Ex: 12, he produced envelope at Ex. 12-A, application dated: 16.08.2016 for identification parade at Ex.12-B, memos of identification parade at Ex.12-C and Ex.12-D respectively, copies of CNICs at Ex 12-E to Ex 12-11 respectively, copy of FIR No. 370-2015 at Ex:12-1. PW-04 ASI Mohammad Rizwan at Ex 13, he produced memo of re-arrest and recovery of accused Asif at Ex: 13-A, memo of inspection of the place of recovery of crime weapon at Ex: 13-18. PW-05 SIP Zulfiqar Ali at Ex: 14, he produced inquest reports and memos of inspection of dead bodies at Ex: 14-A to Ex. 14-11 respectively. PW-06 Mohammad Asif Khan (injured eye witness) at Ex:15, he produced notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. at Ex:15-1. PW-07 Shiraz Ali, the MLO at Ex.16, he produced Medico-Legal Certificates, cause of death certificates and postmortem reports of two deceased police officials and medico legal certificate of injured PW-6 at Ex:16-A to Ex:16-M respectively. PW-08 ASI Haroon-ur-Rasheed at Ex:18, he produced memo of inspection of the place of incident and recovery of empties at Ex:18-A. PW-09 PC Mushtaq Ahmed, (eye witness), who identified deceased accused persons namely Muhammad Bilal and Abdul Salam as well as present accused Muhammad Asif alias Katoo, at Ex:20, he produced memo of identification of accused and recovery of snatched official SMG at Ex:20-A. PW-10 Mohammad ,Raees at Ex; 22, he produced memo of re-arrest of the appellant at Ex:22-A. The learned APG given up PW PC Ambar Hayat vide statement at Ex:23. PW-11 DSP Waheed Khan at Ex:24, he produced sketch of the place of incident at Ex: 24-A, photographs of the place of incident as well as photographs of deceased police officials at Ex:24-B to Ex:24-B/7, letter addressed to SSP Investigation-Ill at Ex 24-C, letter addressed to DIGP for Geo Fencing at Ex.24-D, copy of order dated 02.09.2015 at Ex: 24-E. PW12 PC Hafeez Ghouri at Ex. 25. PW-13 DSP Shakeel Ahmed at Ex. 26, he produced copy of order dated: 08-01-2016 at Ex: 26-A, DD entry No: 04 at Ex:26-B, DD entry No: 8 at Ex:26-C. PW-14 Retired Inspector Mohammad Hussain Chandio at Ex:27, he produced DD entry No. 41 at Ex: 27-A, DD entry No: 51 at Ex:27-B. letter addressed to DIGP at Ex: 27-C, letter addressed to Incharge FSL at Ex.27-D. FSL report of kalashinkov at Ex:27-E. Learned APG for the State given up DSP Ali Mohammad Khoso vide statement at Ex.28 PW-15 Inspector Syed Mohammad Sarfraz at Exh.29. he produced memo of re-arrest of accused Faheem at Ex:29-A PW-16 Inspector Pathan Khan at Ex:30, he produced DD entry No: 25 at Ex:30-A. letter addressed to Police surgeon at Ex. 30-B, letter addressed to Incharge FSL, at Ex:30-C, copy of Order of DIGP at Ex:30-D, FSL report at Ex: 30-E, letter addressed to Surgeon of Civil Hospital at Ex.30-F. letter addressed to Chemical Examiner at Ex:30-G. Report of Chemical Examiner at Ex:30-H, DD entry No 14 at Ex:30-I, DD entry No 06 at Ex:30-J. Learned APG filed an application u/s 540 Cr.P.C. at Ex.31 for calling PW Dr. Afzal Ahmed, the MLO which was allowed at Ex.32. PW-17 SIP Mohammad Ashraf at Ex:33, he produced letter addressed to MLO JPMC at Ex:33-A, letter addressed to JIPMC at Ex.33-B, DD entries No: 21and 23 at Ex:33-C and Ex:33-D.PW- 18 Dr. Sheeraz Ali, in his behalf and on behalf of Dr. Afzal in the capacity of well conversant at Ex.34, he produced copy of order of police surgeon at Ex: 34-A. postmortem report of deceased Mohammad Akhtar at Ex:34-B, certificate of cause of death at Ex:34-C, postmortem report of Aqeel
---
## Page 4
at Ex.34-D, certificate of cause of death at Ex.34-E. PW-19 ASI Zulfiqar Ali Khan at Ex:35. PW-20 DSP Mehmood Hussain Raja at Ex:36, he produced DD entry No: 49 at Ex:36-A, DD entry No: 36 at Ex. 36-B, DD entry No: 40 at Ex: 36-C, notices u/s 160 Cr.P.C. at Ex:36-D and Ex. 36-D/1, DD entry No: 41 at Ex: 36- E, DD entry No: 47 at Ex: 36-F, DD entry Nor 31 at Ex. 36-G, FIR No: 492/2016 at Ex: 36-H, DD entry No: 34 at Ex:36-1, DD entry No.55 at Ex:36-J, letter addressed to DIGIP at Ex:36-K, letter addressed to Incharge FSL at Ex: 36-L, FSL report at Ex:36-M, DD entry No: 18 at Ex.36-N, DD entry No: 26 at Ex:36-O, DD entry No: 19 at Ex:36-P, DD entry 14 at Ex: 36-0, DD entry No: 28 at Ex:36-R, DD entry No: 46 at Ex.36- S, copy of koth register entry at Ex:36-T. Learned APG for the State filed an application u/s 540 Cr.P.C. for recalling and re-examining DSP Mehmood Hussain Raja at Ex: 37, which was allowed at Ex:38. 11. The trial Court recorded the statement of appellant and co-accused Faheem under Section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegation against them and claimed to be innocent. They have neither examined themselves on oath to disprove the prosecution's allegation nor even led any evidence in their defence. The Trial Court after hearing the learning counsel for the appellant as well as APG for the State convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned above vide impugned judgment. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated: that the identification of appellant by the PWs cannot be safely relied upon as no hulia of appellant was given by them at the time when their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded; that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in true prospective and passed the impugned judgment which is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the alleged disclosure followed by the recovery of crime weapon has been foisted upon the appellant just to strengthen the case of the prosecution; that the case of prosecution is replete with legal defects, discrepancies and infirmity which has made the case of prosecution doubtful; that prosecution case suffered from material contradictions; that there is no independent witness of recovery and I.O. violated the mandatory provision of Section 103 Cr.P.C.; that the case of prosecution does not fall under Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; that appellant was neither nominated in FIR nor arrested at the spot and there was no occasion for his conviction merely on the statements of interested eye witnesses who claimed to have identified the appellant in test identification parade held in derogation to the principle safeguards enumerated by the superior Court of this country. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following case laws: "Kanwar Anwar Ali, Special Judicial Magistrate PLD 2019 SC 488, Subha Sadiq v. The State 2025 SCMR 50, Anwar Faheem alias Anoo alias Zeshan v. The State 2024 MLD 762, Naseer Ahmed alias Mullen v. The State 2024 P.Cr.L.J. 196, Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344, Fazal Hussain alias Fageera & others v. The State 2020 P.Cr.L.J. 311, Shakeel & another v. The State 2019 MLD 1554, Khizar Hayat son of Hadaitullah PLD 2019 SC 527, Owais & another v. The State 2022 P.Cr.L.J. 920, Muhammad Imtiaz Baiq & another 2024 SCMR 1191, Anwar Hussain & others v The State 2019 YLR 1117, Attaullah alias Qasim & others v. The State 2006 YLR 3213, Amanullah v. The State 2022 YLR 1681, Ghulam hussain & others v. The State 2020 PLD SC 61, Abdul Hayee & others v. The State 2025 SCMR 281, Muhammad Hassan & another v. The State & others 2024 SCMR 1427, Moula Bux v. The State 2018 YLR 270, Asad alias Nazir v. The State 2019 MLD 1821, Sajjad alias Mithu v. The State 2022 P.Cr.L.J. Note 18 Muhammad Ali v. The State & others 2015 P.Cr.LJ. 1448, Nasreen & others v. The State 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 685, Fayyaz Ahmed v. The State 2017 SCMR 2026, Afzal Haider v. The State 1992 MLD 421, Nasreen & others v. The State 1991 P.Cr.L.J. 1082, Faheem Ali v. The State 2019 MLD 468, Sajid Hussein v. The Stale 2021 MLD 163, M. Anwar & another v. The State 2021 YLR 1346, Islam & another v. The State Cr. Appeal No.126/2021, Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State
---
## Page 5
2018 SCMR 577, Faiyaz Khan & another v. The Stale 2024 NLR 905 and M. Saleem v. Shabbir Ahmed 2016 SCMR 1605." 13. Conversely learned A.P.G. assisted while supporting the impugned judgment contended that prosecution through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence has proved the charge against the appellant; that FIR has been lodged promptly with specific role of firing; that after the arrest of appellant he confessed his guilt by recording his extra-judicial confession, followed by the recovery of Kalashnikov; that recovery of empties from the place of incident were matched with the recovered weapon; that ocular accounts i.e. P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 duly identified the appellant during test identification parade as well as in trial Court; that P.W. 6 sustained fire arm injury which established his presence at the scene of offence; that appellant along with deceased co-accused were well prepared and duly armed with sophisticated automatic weapons made indiscriminate firing upon police officials while they were taking lunch in a hotel and this fact itself is enough to establish the element of pre-meditation and mens rea of the appellant for committing the crime; that the findings of trial Court, being based on proper appreciation of evidence called no interference on mere minor discrepancies; that there is no glaring contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses; that the terrorism had badly affected in the whole area so, the appellant is not deserved for any leniency. He relied upon the following case laws: "Ansar & others v. The State & others 2023 SCMR 929, Nazir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 1299, Ali Taj & others v. The State 2023 SCMR 900, Muhammad Hayat & another v. The State 2021 SCMR 92, Muhammad Siddique Siddique & others v. The Slate 2020 SCMR 342, Mst. Nazakat v. Hazrat Jamal & another PLD 2007 SC 453, Shoaib Ahmed 7 others v. The State & others 2019 P.Cr.L.J. 57, Muhammad Azeem v. The State 1998 P.Cr.L.J. 175, Abdul Rashid & 3 others v. Abdul Ghaffar & 5 others 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 524, Munawar Shah v. The State 2004 MLD 200, Bahadur v. The State 2014 YLR 742, Aijaz Nawaz alias Baba v. The State 2019 P.Cr.L.J. 1775 and Ghulam Sarwar v. The State 2019 YLR 2530." 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.G. Sindh as well as scanned the material available on record with their assistance. 15. Upon reassessm ent of the prosecution evidence, it is revealed that the prosecution case is primarily based on the ocular account of witnesses to the murder of four police officials, the robbery of their official SMGs, corroborating medical evidence, identification parade, and recovery of the weapon. A perusal of the testimony of PW-6, Muhammad Asif Khan (Ex15), indicates that he had been serving as a volunteer (Qaumi Razakar) and was attached to the Zaman Town Police Station as a driver of the police mobile. PW-6 deposed that on 12.08.2015, he, along with four deceased police officials--namely ASI Aqeel Ahmed, PC Muhammad Anwar, PC Jamil Ahmed, and PC Akhtar--was having lunch at Hanif Nihari Hotel. During that time, three unknown assailants arrived and indiscriminately opened fire upon them. As a result, PW-6 sustained three firearm injuries, while all four police officials died on the spot. After committing the offence, the assailants seized the official SMGs of the deceased police personnel and fled from the scene. Shortly thereafter, PC Mushtaq and other police officials arrived at the place of incident, and PW-6 was shifted to Jinnah Hospital for medical treatment. PW.6 during his examination-in-chief has testified as under: "I identified one suspect involved in the offense and also stated that he is the same accused who had made firing upon us." 16. PW-9, PC Mushtaque (Ex-20), deposed that he had arrived at the scene upon the invitation of the deceased ASI Aqeel Ahmed, who had called him to join for lunch. As soon as he reached near the gate of the Hanif Nihari Hotel, he heard the sound of gunfire and observed panic spreading among the public. In the midst of this commotion, he saw three individuals emerging from the hotel, one was armed with a Kalashnikov, another held a pistol, while the third was carrying a
---
## Page 6
gunny bag. The trio fled from the scene on a motorcycle. PW-9 during his evidence has deposed that: "I immediately rushed inside the hotel. I saw ASI Aqeel was laying in injured condition on floor and three constables were laying in half sitting position on the table in severe injured condition. one Quanii Razakar namely Asif was also lying in injured condition. I immediately made call to Chippa ambulance and informed to police station Zaman Town" PW-9 further deposed that: 17. It is pertinent to note that PW.6 sustained fiream injuries on vital parts of his body and his presence at the place of accurrence was not challenged by the defence during cross- examination. There was also no suggestion that his injuries were self-inflicted. Similarly the testimony of PW.9 remand unshaken during cross-examination lending further credibility to the veracity of his presense at the crime scence. In view of the above, the ocular testimony of PW.6 and PW.9 deserves full credence, particularly as it is consistent, coherent and devoid of any material contradictions, discrepancies or inherent improbabilities. Their presence at the scene of offence cannot be regarded as doubtful. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to question the reliability of PW-6 Muhammad Asif Khan's testimony on the ground that he was not a police officials but merely a volunteer (Qaumi Razakar), and further contended that PW-9 PC Mushtaque was a pianted witness, as his name did not appear in the FIR as an eyewitness. These contentions of the defence. However, carry no legal weight. The capacity in which PW-6 accompanied the deceased police officials is inconsequential, particularly when it stands established through reliable evidence that he was present at the scene and sustained firearm injuries. Furthermore, the evidence on record reveals that PW-9 was cited as an eyewitness during the course of investigation. He had, in fact, identified the deceased accused Muhammad Bilal and Abdul Salam on 13 03 2016, which was well before the arrest of the present appellant on 12 08.2016. hence. his status as an eyewitness does not appear doubtful. His immediate arrival at the scene following the incident was also corroborated by the testimony of injured PW-6 Muhammad Asif Khan. In these circumstances, the testimony of PW-9, to the effect that he saw the appellant and deceased co- accused fleeing from the scene while armed, is fully consistent with the version of PW-6 and stands corroborated by the overall evidence on record. 18. Insofar as the testimony of the police officials is concerned. It is a well-settled principle of law that the evidence of police personnel is to be treated at par with that of any other witness and cannot be discarded merely on account of their official status. In the present case, the police officials have furnished straightforward coherent and confidence-inspiring testimony. There is nothing on record to suggest that they acted with male fide intent or that their depositions were motivated by animus against the appellant. Hence, the presumption of impartiality stands intact. Mere employment in the police force does not ipso facto render a witness interested or unreliable unless it is demonstrated that the witness harbours a motive to falsely implicate the accused or has enmity with him. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Zaffar v. The State (2008 SCMR 1254), wherein it has held that:- "Police employees are the competent witnesses like any other witnesses and their testimonies cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police officials." 19. In the case at hand, there is no evidence of enmity, or personal grudge between the appellant and the prosecution witnesses. In the absence of such material, no adverse inference can be drawn against the veracity of the official witnesses, whose evidence was rightly relied upon by the learned trial court. Mere status of being an official does not prejudice the competence of a witness unless he is shown to be interested, actuated by motive, or harbouring enmity against the accused The Apex court has reiterated this view in Farooq v. The State (2008 SCMR 970).
---
## Page 7
20. The testimony of PW-10, Muhammad Raees (Ex-22), the proprietor of Hanif Nihari Hotel, lends corroboration to the ocular account of PW-6 and PW-9 to the extent that police officials had entered the hotel premises for the purpose of dining, arrival of armed person, hearing of gunshot sounds , so also one bullet crossed his left arm, However, it is pertinent to note that PW-10 introduced a significant improvement during the trial by asserting, for the first time, that the appellant was wearing face mask This assertion was absent in his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. Notably, PW6 and PW9, had never uttered a single word that the appellant or deceased/co-accused were wearing any face mask at the relevant time Furthermore, despite having acknowledged the contents of the memo of arrest and identification of the appellant (Ex-22/A), which bears his signature, PW-10 declined to identify the appellant during trial proceedings. This contradiction and omission materially affect the evidentiary value of his testimony to the extent of identification of the accused. 21. In the given circumstances he was declared hostile, but during cross-examination he admitted the incident, inflicting firearm injury on his person. In other words he admitted each and every content of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and memo of arrest (EX-22/A). During cross-examination APG gave specific suggestion that in the year 2015 there was no concept of wearing facemask in public place and his denial to identify the appellant is result of fear and coercion, When the testimony of above…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.