If a plea of self -defence had not been explicitly taken during the trial, either in the statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C

Citation Name : 2020 PCrLJ 170 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : HAROON-UR-RASHID
Side Opponent : State
S. 100---self -defence , right of ---Scope---If a plea of self -defence had not been explicitly taken during the trial, either in the statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. or at the time of cross examining the prosecution witnesses, yet it remained open to the court to infer the same from evidence led during the trial.

Citation Name : 2020 PCrLJ 170 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : HAROON-UR-RASHID
Side Opponent : State
S. 342---Specific plea taken by accused in his statement---Effect---If accused explicitly had taken the plea of self -defence then the onus to prove its existence would be on him.

Citation Name : 2020 PCrLJ 170 ISLAMABAD
Side Appellant : HAROON-UR-RASHID
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that a police party had visited an area for conducting investigation of criminal case registered under S. 506, P.P.C. where accused made firing at on duty Police Constable, who died---Record showed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses confirmed that neither the deceased nor the other officials were in uniform---Nothing was available on record to show that complainant had left the police station and that his presence at the crime scene was in connection with the investigation of a criminal case---Nothing on record to show that the accused-appellants were nominated as accused in the criminal case which was being investigated---While two of the accused-appellants had managed to flee from the crime scene the other two were arrested without resistance, would not appeal to a reasonable prudent mind---To the extent of arrested accused persons, the prosecution had failed to bring on record any reliable, confidence inspiring and unimpeachable evidence to prove their involvement in the commission of the offence and same was the case of third co-accused---Said co-accused was alleged to have reached the crime scene with accused and the role attributed to him was confined to firing from a firearm weapon---Ocular evidence brought on record by way of depositions of three Police Officials did not inspire confidence---Other witnesses, who were stated to be present at the time of occurrence, were given up and in this regard reasons had not been provided by the prosecution---Prosecution, in circumstances, could not prove the guilt of three co-accused persons beyond reasonable doubt---Case of accused was distinct because he had taken the plea of self -defence in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Record transpired that it was not the case of accused that the deceased was holding a firearm weapon in order to apprehend or had reason to believe that there was imminent danger or threat of being fired upon---According to his own version, while he was grappling with the deceased, he felt as though the latter was reaching to pull out a firearm weapon---Nothing on record to show that the deceased was armed with a firearm weapon at the time of the commission of the offence---Admittedly, the injuries to which the deceased had succumbed were solely attributed to firing from a firearm weapon by accused and three shots were fired from the firearm weapon used by the accused---Accused had admittedly shot the deceased three times and he was not successful in making out a case of having acted in self -defence ---Admission made by accused was corroborated by the complaint and other evidence brought on record---High Court declined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court to the extent of accused, in circumstances---Appeal to the extent of accused was dismissed and allowed in relation to the other appellants because prosecution had failed to bring on record trustworthy, consistent and unimpeachable evidence on record to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt---All the three co-accused persons were acquitted by setting aside their conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.