Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2441 2018 SLD 2441 2018 MLD 1963
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 252 of 2015, decision Dated: 19-12-2017. Hearing Date : 06-12-2017.
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JUSTICE ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Mamoon K. Shirwany and Farkhunda Jabeen for Appellant. Abdullah Rajput, Additional Prosecutor General for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM

VS

THE STATE

Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: 4,5

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

(a) Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)--- ----Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that on spy information two suspicious persons found at the place of incident, were apprehended---Personal search of said suspects, in presence of mashirs, resulted in recovery of one hand grenade---FIR was registered against the said person---Case being that of Spy information complainant (police official) had sufficient time to call independent persons either from place of information or from place of incident to join recovery proceedings---Place of incident was a thickly populated area, but no efforts were made by the complainant to call independent person of the locality to witness the recovery proceedings, therefore, false implication of the accused in that case could not be ruled out---No description/ number of the hand grenade was mentioned either in FIR or in mashirnama of arrest and recovery---Expert of Bomb Disposal Unit, while issued clearance certificate and inspection report of hand grenade showing the number of hand grenade and colour without detonator---Record transpired that the hand grenade was recovered from the accused on 13.10.2014, but it was sent to experts on 21.10.2014, after the delay of eight days; during that intervening period, the hand grenade was retained by whom, had not been explained by the prosecution---Clearance certificate and inspection report of hand grenade showed that the alleged hand grenade was without detonator and explosive substance; therefore, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that when grenade could not explode without detonator then why the accused had kept the same with him---Admittedly, incident took place during the midnight---Source of identification had not been mentioned---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its charge against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of…
🔒
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