Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: 4,5

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: 23(1)(a)

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7,6(2)(ee)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103

(a) Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)--- ----Ss. 4 & 5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 6(2)(ee)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property---Possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances---Unlicensed possession of arms---Search to be made in presence of witnesses---Act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Un-natural conduct---Safe custody---Failure to seal case property---Corroboratory evidence, non-availability of---Effect---Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of two bombs, one .30 bore pistol with loaded magazine, 35 live bullets, one automatic stand gun of .30 bore along with rounded shape magazine and two straight magazines---Accused was not found connected with any militant group---Police had not associated private witnesses despite being present, in a well-populated area---Prosecution case had failed to satisfy the test of reasonableness on the ground that when the accused was loaded with such weapons, why did he not make a single fire or resisted his arrest---Tampering with case property could not be ruled out as some of the same was not sealed---Scrutiny of prosecution evidence revealed that grenades found on the person of accused were shown to have different serial numbers at various places---Safe custody of the case property at police station and safe transit to experts was also not established---Evidence of police officials did not appear to be trustworthy, thus required independent corroboration, which was lacking in the case---Prosecution had failed to bring guilt to the accused person's doorsteps beyond any taint or shadow of doubt, therefore, High Court while extending benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitted him of the charge---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Pervaiz v. The State 2005 SCMR 1038; Waris Ali and 5 others v. The State 2017 SCMR 1572 and The State v. Muhammad Shafique alias Pappo PLD 2004 SC 39 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Scope---Several circumstances are…

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