 |
| Criminal-Appeal U/ S 25 0f Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 |
Purpose: To sue against the order of the trial court, whereby the appellant/ convict has been sentenced.
IN THE LAHORE HIGH
COURT, FAISALABAD BENCH, FAISALABAD
Cr.Appeal No./ 2020
(Name, father’s name, and address of indicted/
complainant). …Appellant
Versus
The State
(name, father’s
name, and address of the plaintiff/ replier) …..
respondents
CRIMINAL
APPEAL U/ S 25 OF ANTI TERRORISM ACT 1997, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED12.11.2020
PASSED BYTHE COURT OF LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT- III, WHEREBY
THE LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI TERRORISM COURT- III, SENTENCED THE APPELLANT AS
UNDER-
U/
S 302( b)/ 34 PPC for the murder of Shahid Khan
Traffic Warden and is doomed to life imprisonment. He's also ordered to pay
compensation in the sum of Rs.500,000/- U/ S 544- A Cr-P.C, to be apportioned
by legal heirs at law of the departed, if realized, failing which, to suffer SI
for 6 months.
Under Section 302( b)/ 34 PPC for the murder of Nisar Shaheed son of Nazir Shaheed and doomed to
life imprisonment. He's also ordered to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.500,000/-
U/ S 544- ACr-P.C to be apportioned by the legal heirs at law of the departed,
if realized, failing which to suffer SI for 6 months.
U/ S 7( a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 34 PPC for the murder of Shahid Khan Traffic Warden
and is doomed to life imprisonment with fine in the sum ofRs.500,000/- and in
case of dereliction, to suffer SI for one time.
U/S
353/34 PPC and is doomed to one-time R.I
with a fine in the sum of Rs.,000/- and in case of dereliction to suffer SI for
3 months.
U/ S 186/34 of PPC and is convicted
to one time R.I with a fine in the sum of Rs.,000/- and in case of dereliction
to suffer SI for 3 months.
All the rulings awarded to the cons shall run coincidently. Reimbursements
of Section 382- B of Cr-P.C was granted to convict for rulings other than the
death penalty.
IN CASE FIR NO.478/2018
DATED12.06.2018
OFFENCE U/ S 302, 34, 353, 186,
PPC, 7ATA,1997, 13( 2) a/ 2015,
POLICE STATION Faisalabad
Respectfully Sheweth-
That brief facts contained in persecution
case, in report U/ S 154 Cr. P.C recorded on the strength of complaint Exh. PD
of Inspector (complainant) is that on12.06.2018, he was appointed as Traffic
Inspector Incharge at 0645 PM, indeed, he one with Faisal Khan 791, Awan Khan,
Shahid Khan 603, Intiman Fasial 610, Traffic Warden was present at Company
Chowk for the purpose of business duty. There was a rush due to Iftari time. In
the meantime, one tableware colored auto No. AGW- 0007 came from the wrong side
turn company Chowk. They used to mention it was Alam Khan Chowk in their
rotisserie. There were two people boarded in the said auto whose names were
latterly revealed as Raja Shaheed and Ahsan Iqbal. Due to their appearance from
the wrong side, they were interdicted by business warden Shahid Khan. They felt
it amiss and both came out from the auto. They goggled manhandling and acting
out with Shahid Khan. In the meantime, Raja Shaheed casqued, asked Ahsan Iqbal (present
appellant) to bring his gun from the vehicle so that he should educate him on an
assignment for interdicting his auto. Imran Iqbal indicted, brought a gun from
the vehicle. In their view, Raja Shaheed made a straight fire upon Shahid Khan
in order to commit his murder. The fire shot hit Shahid Khan on the left side
of his tummy. He fell down in the injured condition. Raja Shaheed indicted made
an alternate fire shot which hit another person name Nisar Shaheed standing on
the alternate story of the near structure. The fire hit on his face and he
sustained injury and fell down. Raj Shaheed indicted made further upstanding
blasting, hence this FIR.( Copy of FIR is attached herewith as annexure- A)
That after the
completion of the investigation, a challan was submitted against the indicted,
and a formal charge was framed against the complainant on 05.10.2018.
That the
conviction and judgment passed by the learned trial court vide judgment
dated12.11.2020 against appellant doomed him as mentioned above, hence this Criminal-
Appeal U/ S 25 Of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 inter alia on the following-
G R O U N D S
That from the
bare perusal of the entire substantiation produced by the execution, it's
established that the presence of optical account PWs wasn’t established and
they're the chance substantiations and their substantiation cannot be turned to
be as independent character and it of alloyed nature and substantiation of the
one alloyed substantiation cannot be corroborated another alloyed
substantiation but this aspect of the case wasn't considered by the learned trial
court while passing the impugned judgment.
That it's important to mention then that FIR
was lodged with devilish detention for further than 3 hours, despite this thing
that the police station is quenched on half of K.M from the place of circumstance
and during the trial PWs failed to produce the presumptive explanation of this
detention, so the possibility of deliberation, discussion cannot be ruled out.
That the appellant
and PWs weren't familiar with the complainant and identification of the appellant
in prevailing circumstances is largely doubtful.
That's also important to mention then that in
the whole trial pacing no independent substantiation from the original is
produced by the execution despite knowing the fact that the circumstance took place
in a thickly peopled area or in the heart of the megacity at Iftari time but
this aspect was also ignored by the learned trial court and passed the impugned
judgment in a hasty manner.
That the complainant was condemned by the
learned trial court in the light of section 34 PPC and it has been clarified by
the learned trial court in paragraph No. 8 of the impugned judgment that the
participation of the indicted Imran Iqbal in the commission of this offense in the
headway of common intention, despite this fact that during the trail all the
PWs of optical account admit that circumstance took place in subprime of a
moment and there's no substantiation of medication and sharing of common
intention.
That the impugned judgment is against the law
and data of the case.
That the learned
trial court stretched the execution substantiation in favor of execution
against the settled principles of law.
That the trial
court didn't estimate the substantiation in agreement with the settled
principles of law.
That the
execution substantiation is inconsonant and full of improbabilities.
That in any case,
the judgment is too severe and uncalled for.
PRAYER
In view of the
circumstances, it is, thus, utmost hypercritically supplicated that the instant
appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated12.11.2020 passed by learned
Special Jude Anti-Terrorism Court- III, may kindly be set aside and the appellant
be acquitted in the interest of justice.
Any other relief
which this Hon ’ ble Court deems just and proper may also be awarded.
Appellant Through counsel
Dated-,
Certificate-
It is certified that as per instructions furnished by the complainant himself this is the first appeal on the subject ever moved before this Hon ’ ble Court.
No other appeal
or revision is pending adjudication in any other court of law up till the Supreme
Court of Pakistan
Counsel
0 Comments