Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---.--- ---.---Ss. 417(2-A) & 410---.---Appeal against acquittal---.---Scope---.---Consideration for interference in appeal against acquittal and in appeal against conviction, were altogether different---.---Judgment of acquittal, could not be upset sparingly as accused would enjoy double presumption of innocence; one relating to the pre- stage, that every accused was innocent till proved otherwise; and the other one through a judicial verdict. (b) Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908)---.--- ---.---S. 5---.---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 & 25(4)---.---Possessing explosive material---.---Appeal against acquittal---.---Reappraisal of evidence---.---No illegality, infirmity or improbability was found in the impugned of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, as it had been passed strictly in line with the settled principles of law---.---Trial Court, disbelieved the ocular version furnished by prosecution witnesses, by holding that they were not only found contradicting each other on material facts, but also found at variance about places of recovery of material---.---Record was silent about any search warrant obtained from the competent court for conducting raid on the premises---.---No independent witness i.e. Nazim or Elder of the locality had been associated during raid, which was clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C.---.---Live rounds of different bore allegedly recovered, were sent to Fire Arms Expert after delay of 3 days; and were received in Forensic Science Laboratory after delay of 9 days, for which no explanation had been offered by the prosecution---.---Nothing was on record to show as to in whose safe custody said five rounds were lying during the period---.---Recovered explosive materials were examined in Bomb Disposal Unit after about two months, despite those were stated to be alive and dangerous---.---Bomb Disposal Expert, who examined the explosive material, had not been examined by the prosecution, which had made prosecution case doubtful---.---Trial Court, lawfully and consciously considered all said facts before formulating an opinion of innocence in favour of accused, which was not open to…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492