Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 612 2018 SLD 612 2018 MLD 221
Peshawar High Court
Cr.A. No. 304-P of 2017, decision & hearing Date : 09-10-2017.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE, QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Saeed Khan for Appellant. Mujahid Ali Khan, A.A.G. for the State.

SHER REHMAN

VS

STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA

Law:

Section:

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 5---Act of terrorism, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that explosive material, weighing 4 kilograms, with nut bolts, two non-electric detonators, prima card and safety fuse were recovered from the possession of accused--- Record showed that the prosecution witnesses were not police officials but they were from the same Counter Terrorism Department---Explosive material allegedly recovered on 18.7.2016, was dispatched to the Incharge Bomb Disposal Unit on 29.7.2016 without any evidence with regard to safe custody of the articles during the intervening period---Said unexplained delay in sending the explosive material to Incharge Bomb Disposal Unit for opinion, casted doubt on the report of Incharge Bomb Disposal Unit---Complainant had stated before the court that the explosive material blasted on the spot by the Bomb Disposal Unit officials while defusing the same---Marginal witness admitted that recovery memo. and murasila were prepared after defusing/blasting---Nothing was brought on the record to show either departure or arrival of complainant/ Inspector and his staff in the police station---Record showed that no entry was made in the relevant register showing receipt of the explosive material by the Muharrir and dispatch of the same to Incharge Bomb Disposal Unit---No witness from general public was associated to lend credence to the recovery of incriminating articles---Nothing was brought on record to establish nexus of the accused with terrorist organization---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Police official as witness---Scope---No doubt, police official was as good witness as anyone else, but his testimony for conviction was to be accepted with great care and caution---Discrepancies and contradictions…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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