MOOT PROBLEM OF

3 rd
INTRA DEPARTMENTAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION BY
DADABHOY INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION - MAIN CAMPUS

2024

AHMED AND OTHERS (APPLICANT)

VERSUS

STATE/POLICE (RESPONDENT)

GROUP: E
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
II

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. List of Sources/Authorities
…………………………………………………………………………………………....03
 2. Statement of Relevant Facts
………………………………………………………………………………………..04-05

3. Statement of Jurisdiction
…………………………………………………………………………………………... 06

4. Questions Presented
……………………………………………………………………………………………07

5. Summary of Arguments
……………………………………………………………………………………………08

6. Arguments
………………………………………………………………………………………..09-15

7. Prayer
……………………………………………………………………………………………16

II

LIST OF SOURCES/AUTHORITIES

1. Section 149 CrPC (code of criminal procedure)

2, Sections 97,353, and 99 PPC (Pakistan penal code)
3. State v. Khan and Muhammad Arif v. State
4. Sections 149 and 151 CrPC (code of criminal procedure)
5. State v. Nawab Khan (PLD 2002 SC 623) and Muhammad Arif v. State (PLD 1991 SC
18)
6. Muhammad Bashir v. State (PLD 1997 SC 408)
7. Section 7 Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)
8. Sections 302, 353, and 7 (murder)
9. State v. Muhammad Shahid (PLD 2010 SC 258),
10. Muhammad Ishaq v. State (2003 SCMR 1235)
11. State v. Gul Hassan (PLD 2015 SC 66),
12. Ghulam Hussain v. State (2019 SCMR 1502)
13. Muhammad Riaz v. State (2005 SCMR 58),

III

STATEMENT OF RELEVENT FACTS

1) The Mirpurkhel is a village of Sukkur city in the province of Sindh having large number of
Population of different groups of people within the locality. However, there is a majority of
two tribes Dasti tribe and Kohistani tribe both communities have tribal dispute since long
and they time to time commit murder of peoples of each community they had a series of
litigation in their past against each other.
2) Certain peoples of Kohistani are police officials and posted at the police station of
Mirpurkhel village. However, on the other hand the people of Dasti tribe are Business-
Minded people and they have small shops in the village. Moreover, some people of Dasti
tribe are involved in some criminal cases. Everything was normal but suddenly on Sunday
01st January 2020 an unprecedented incident took place. The police force surrounded some
people of Dasti tribe and arrested them. This incident lasted for 30 minutes thereafter the
streets of the village were totally empty no one was outside the home.
3) After the lapse of one and a half hour it was circulated through news channels that some
dacoits with intent to attack on police force were moving towards the police station on such
spy information the police took precautionary measures and countered the attack.
Consequently, one of the dacoits was found dead at the spot and one police official was
martyred in the cross firing. The dacoits are arrested and fir is registered at police station
Mirpurkhel.
FIR
Crime no.01/2020 Ps: Mirpurkhel date & time 01-01-2020 time: 04:00 pm
1 Dated & time report 01 01-01-2020 time 10:00 pm
2 Complainant On behalf of state by assistant sub
inspector Imran

3 Under section 302, 353 (PPC) 07 (ATA)

4 Distance b/w police station and place of incident About 3/4 kilo meter
5 Delay (if any) in lodging of fir As soon as the complainant reached
the PS, the FIR was lodged.
6 When complainant left PS Same

IV
4) Complainant ASI Imran Police station Mirpurkhel lodged the fir on behalf of the state
that he was available at the police station where he received a spy information that the
police has
5) Arrested the accused Usama Dasti and Fahad Dasti & recovered unlicensed weapons and
challaned them, upon such act their criminal friends became annoyed and they have
intimidated the police that they will cause casualties to the police. On the date of the incident
they all gathered & were coming from Mirpurkhel village with intend to attack upon the
 police force. On such information the complainant informed to his high ups & he along with
his staff namely Sadam Kohistani, Nadir Kohistani, Hamza Malik and others, duly in
uniform & armed with weapons left the police station through entry no. 01-01/ dated: 01-
01-2020 and proceeded to the place of incident. When they reached in Mirpurkhel at about
3:45pm they saw that 05 people in a white revo were coming towards police station, the
police stopped their vehicle, ASI Imran & Police Constable Sadam Kohistani identified the
accused persons as:
 Ahmed Dasti
 Muhammad Dasti
 Bilal Dasti.
 Usama
Dasti
 Haris Dasti

6) They all were armed with weapons, the police directed them to surrender themselves
however, the accused persons started straight firing with the intention to commit murder on
which the police party took defensive efforts and did counter firing. During the firing
complainant saw that Nadir Kohistani has sustained a firearm injury. Someone from the
accused side had also raised hue & cry that one of the accused Haris Dasti has sustained
firearm injury on his head. This encounter continued for about 30 minutes. The complainant
took efforts for private witnesses but he failed to get any independent witness, therefore cited
Sadam Kohistani and Hamza Malik, thereafter they saw that Nadir Kohistani has received
fire on his head therefore he expired on the spot. From the accused side the one accused who
was subjected to firearm injury was expired and remaining 04 accused had sustained bullets
on their legs and all were arrested red handed by the police.
V
7) Complainant recovered about 15 empty bullet shells of pistols from the place of incident
which was fired by accused persons & about 10 empty bullet shells of SMG & about 07
empty bullet shells of G3 gun. Which were fired by police, collected and sealed separately.
8) The complainant above named lodged the fir on behalf of the state in above terms.
Complainant:
Imran
Eye witnesses:
 i Sadam Kohistani
ii Hamza Malik
Deceased:
i) Nadir Kohistani (police side)
ii) Haris Dasti (accused side)
Accused persons:
i) Ahmed Dasti
ii) Muhammad Dasti
iii) Bilal Dasti
iv) Usama Dasti
Recovered property:
i) 05 pistols one from each accused.
ii) 15 empty bullet shells of pistols.
iii) 10 empty bullet shells of SMG.
iv) 07 empty bullet shells of G3 gun.

All the accused persons were produced before court of Anti-Terrorism Sukkur and were
shifted to government hospital for treatment under the custody. All four accused persons
were under treatment in the hospital simultaneously charges were framed against them and
the trail commenced. The court of Anti-Terrorism Sukkur declared the accused persons
guilty.
Now the accused persons have appealed before The Honorable high court of Sindh.

VI
The laws of Pakistan are applicable before The High court of Sindh. The case laws and
judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan and high courts are applicable before high court of
Sindh.
 VII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Sindh High Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to Article 199 of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which grants the High Court the power to issue
constitutional petitions for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
In this case, the appellants contend that their fundamental rights, particularly the right to life,
liberty, and fair trial, have been violated. Therefore, the Sindh High Court has the jurisdiction to
review the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court of Sukkur and provide appropriate relief.
Additionally, under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the High Court has
the power to hear and determine appeals from judgments of subordinate courts.
The appellants respectfully submit that this Honorable Court has the necessary jurisdiction to
hear and determine this appeal.

VIII

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Before the high court of Sindh following questions are arisen:

1. Whether the police had taken right measures?

2. Whether the police have rightly apprehended the accused persons?
 3. Whether the section 07 of the Anti-Terrorism Act is applicable in the present scenario
OR the matter is of personal vendetta and the section 07 of ATA is misapplied?
4. Whether there are sufficient grounds for the charges framed against the accused to be
upheld?

IX
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The police acted within their legal duties by taking preventive measures based on credible
intelligence of an imminent attack on the police station, in line with Section 149 CrPC, Sections
97 and 99 PPC. When the armed suspects resisted, the police responded with proportionate
force, as allowed in self-defense. Case law such as State v. Khan and supports this approach.
The police rightly apprehended the accused under Sections 149 and 151 CrPC and Section
353P PC, with strong evidence and witness testimony. Precedents like Section 353P PC affirm
their actions.

Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act was applicable due to the accused's coordinated armed
attack, creating public fear and undermining state authority, as seen in State v. Gul Hassan and
Ghulam Hussain v. State.

The charges under Sections 302, 353 PPC, and 7 ATA are supported by the Nazab evidence,
including the police officer's death and the firearms recovered. State v. Muhammad Shahid and
Muhammad Ishaq v. State validate these charges, reinforcing that the police's actions were to
maintain public safety.

ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO 1: Whether the police had taken right measures?

The police had taken the right measures in this case based on credible intelligence regarding a
threat of attack on the police station. Law enforcement officials are entrusted with the duty to
prevent crime and ensure public safety, and their actions in this situation align with their legal
obligations under Section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) states that Every police
officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, to the best of his ability,
prevent, the commission of any cognizable offence.. The interception of the accused, who were
reportedly armed and moving towards the police station, was a necessary step to neutralize an
imminent danger. The police attempted to handle the situation by directing the suspects to
surrender, which is a clear demonstration of procedural adherence and restraint.

When the suspects responded with gunfire, the police acted in self-defense, a right protected
under Sections 97 (This section gives everyone the right to defend their own body, property,
or the body and property of others against unlawful acts. It allows individuals to use
necessary force to protect against aggression or harm) and 99. (This section places limits on
the right of private defense. It prohibits its use against lawful actions by public servants or
when there is no real threat of serious harm. It also requires individuals to seek help from
authorities if there’s enough time to do so instead of taking action themselves). Of the
Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The use of counterfire was proportionate and aimed at protecting
both themselves and state property. This is further supported by evidence found at the scene,
such as bullet casings and injuries sustained by both parties. Courts, as in State v. Nawab Khan
(PLD 2002 SC 623) and Muhammad Arif v. State (PLD 1991 SC 18) in this case, the police
acted upon specific intelligence about a potential attack on public property and lives. The
authorities took preemptive measures by intercepting and engaging with the suspects
before they could execute their planned attack. The suspects, who were armed and posed
an imminent threat, resisted and engaged the police, resulting in an encounter.

XI

ISSUE NO 2: Whether the police have rightly apprehended the accused persons?

The police rightly apprehended the accused persons based on credible intelligence, direct
identification, and incriminating evidence, which established clear grounds for their arrest.
Acting on spy information about an imminent armed attack on the Mirpur Khel police station,
the police intercepted the suspects who were en route in a white vehicle and were heavily armed.
The accused initiated firing upon being stopped, thereby committing an attack on public servants
in performance of their duty, as defined under Section 353 PPC that deals with the assault or use
of criminal force to prevent a public servant from performing their duties. The police acted
lawfully under Sections 149 states that Every police officer may interpose for the purpose of
preventing, and shall, to the best of his ability, prevent the commission of any cognizable
offence and section 151 of Crpc state that A police officer knowing of a design to commit
any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a
warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the
offence cannot be otherwise prevented. Furthermore, the accused were identified on the spot
by ASI Imran and Constable Sadam Kohistani, eliminating any ambiguity regarding their
involvement. During the encounter, weapons and bullet casings were recovered from the scene,
substantiating the suspects' criminal intent. The arrests, conducted after neutralizing the threat,
complied with legal protocols and were promptly followed by FIR registration, reinforcing the
transparency of the operation. Supported by precedents such as Muhammad Bashir v. State
(PLD 1997 SC 408) in this case Bashir reported in PLD 1997 Supreme Court 408, wherein
the Honorable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that no legal prohibition for a police
officer to be a complainant if he is a witness to the commission of an offence and also to be
an investigating officer so long as it does not in any case prejudice the accused person. And.
Nisar Ahmed v State (2009 SCMR 1879), which affirm the legality of timely and preemptive
actions by law enforcement, the apprehension of the accused was both necessary and
proportionate to ensure public safety and uphold the rule of law.

XII

ISSUE NO 3: Whether the section 07 of the Anti-Terrorism Act is applicable in the present
scenario OR the matter is of personal vendetta and the section 07 of ATA is misapplied?
In the given scenario, the police’s decision to invoke Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)
appears justified as the accused were allegedly involved in an armed and coordinated attack on a
state institution, the police station. Such an act directly challenges state authority and is designed
to intimidate law enforcement, a key requirement under Section 7 of the ATA. The accused’s
intent to retaliate against the prior arrest of two tribal members (Usama and Fahad Dasti)
demonstrates a motive to undermine the police and disrupt public peace. Although the attack
stemmed from a localized tribal dispute, the impact extended beyond personal grievances. The
act caused the streets of Mirpurkhel to empty out, creating fear and insecurity among residents,
which supports the argument that this was more than a personal vendetta. The invocation of
Section 7 of the ATA by the police in this scenario is supported by established precedents,
particularly State v. Gul Hassan (PLD 2015 SC 66) and Muhammad Arif v. The State (PLD
1991 SC 18), which highlight that an attack targeting law enforcement can qualify as
terrorism if it is capable of creating public fear or undermining the authority of the state.
In the given case, the accused allegedly orchestrated an armed assault against a police station in
retaliation for the prior arrest of two tribal members, intending to intimidate and harm state
officials. Such conduct goes beyond personal grievances or tribal enmity, as it demonstrates a
direct challenge to state authority and law enforcement, which the ATA specifically aims to
address.

In State v. Gul Hassan, the Supreme Court held that even localized violence targeting the
police can amount to terrorism if it instills public fear or disrupts peace. Similarly, in
Muhammad Arif v. The State, the Court recognized that acts undermining the police’s
ability to maintain order fall under the ambit of anti-terror laws. In this case, the streets of
Mirpurkhel were left deserted, and public insecurity resulted from the alleged attack, aligning the
incident with the public impact and disruption criteria under Section 7.

By invoking Section 7 of the ATA, the police not only addressed the immediate threat to public
safety but also sought to deter further organized retaliation against the state. These precedents
firmly establish that targeting law enforcement with the intent to intimidate or disrupt their
functioning constitutes an act of terrorism, thereby reinforcing the legality and necessity of the
police’s response. Therefore, the police's actions are justified within the framework of the ATA
and supported by established judicial interpretations of terrorism-related offenses.

XIII

ISSUE NO 4: Whether there are sufficient grounds for the charges framed against the accused to
be upheld?
The framing of charges under Sections 302, 353, and 7 of the ATA by the police is strongly
supported by relevant case law, each highlighting how such situations justify severe legal
consequences. The killing of Nadir Kohistani, a police officer, during the encounter justifies the
Section 302 (murder) charge. In State v. Muhammad Shahid (PLD 2010 SC 258), the
Supreme Court underscored that killing a public servant during lawful duty constitutes murder.
Here, the accused’s armed attack directly resulted in the officer’s death, making Section 302
applicable.

The accused’s use of firearms to obstruct law enforcement’s lawful actions supports the charge
under Section 353 (assault to deter public servants). The precedent set in Muhammad Ishaq
v. State (2003 SCMR 1235) holds that violent resistance against law enforcement necessitates
legal accountability under this section. Similarly, the intentional act of attacking state officials
with firearms satisfies the requirement of deliberate deterrence to public servants in duty.

The inclusion of Section 7 of the ATA (Anti-Terrorism Act) is validated by State v. Gul
Hassan (PLD 2015 SC 66), where the court ruled that any act targeting law enforcement,
causing public insecurity, or undermining public confidence in state authority, constitutes
terrorism. The accused’s organized and armed confrontation disrupted public peace and created
fear in the locality, meeting these criteria. Additionally, Ghulam Hussain v. State (2019 SCMR
1502) reaffirmed that retaliatory and coordinated attacks against law enforcement are acts of
terrorism, regardless of whether they arise from personal disputes.

Finally, the recovery of firearms and bullet shells, along with corroborated testimony by police
officers, further strengthens the charges. The credibility of police evidence has been upheld in
Muhammad Riaz v. State (2005 SCMR 58), where police accounts and forensic evidence were
deemed reliable in prosecuting violent acts. Together, these precedents strongly relate to and
support the police’s actions in this case, ensuring that the charges are justified under the law.

XIV

PRAYER
In light of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that:

1. Issue No. 1: The actions of the police in taking preventive measures, intercepting the
accused based on credible intelligence, and using necessary force in self-defense, be
upheld as lawful and in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC and PPC.
2. Issue No. 2: The apprehension of the accused persons, based on direct identification and
the incriminating evidence at the scene, be deemed valid and legally justified under the
relevant sections of the CrPC and PPC.
3. Issue No. 3: Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act be confirmed as applicable due to the
nature of the attack, the involvement of law enforcement, and the resultant public fear,
aligning with judicial precedents on terrorism-related offenses.
4. Issue No. 4: The charges framed against the accused under Sections 302, 353 PPC, and 7
ATA be upheld as valid and supported by sufficient evidence and established legal
precedents.

It is further prayed that the charges against the accused be confirmed and the police’s actions in
protecting the public and maintaining order be recognized as lawful and just under the law.

XV