| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 48 2020 SLD 48 2020 PLJ 5 |
Sindh High Court
Special Crl. ATA Appeals No. D-221 &. 222 of 2016, decision Dated: 12.09.2017. Hearing Dated: 11.07.2017.
SYED MOHAMMAD FAROOQUE SHAH, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD SALEEM, JESSAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Tahir Rehman Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General
Special Crl. ATA Appeals No. D-221 &. 222 of 2016, decision Dated: 12.09.2017. Hearing Dated: 11.07.2017.
SYED MOHAMMAD FAROOQUE SHAH, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD SALEEM, JESSAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Tahir Rehman Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General
MUHAMMAD OVAIS @ CHINGARI
VS
STATE
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7(i)(ff),25
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 265-H(ii),340(2),342,382B
Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013
Section: 23(i)(a)
Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Section: 4,5
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997)-- ----Ss. 25 & 7(i)(ff)--Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Ss. 4/5--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), S. 265-H(ii)--Sindh Arms Act, 2013, S. 23(i)(a)--Conviction and sentences--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Allegation of--Recovery of some suspicious explosive substance--While examining the evidence adduced by the prosecution and keeping it with juxtaposition with defence evidence find that trial Court has erred while convicting the appellant--The description of alleged grenade are different from the recovery memo even are lacking in charge--The complainant could not specify the recovery and the proceedings allegedly initiated by him--The clearance certificate as well as inspection note are delayed and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such inordinate delay--All above discrepancies have created lot of doubts in prosecution evidence and in such eventuality, that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt--Held: It is settled law by now that single circumstance creating doubt in prosecution evidence is sufficient to discard the prosecution version--In the instant case there is lot of doubts and it appears that either the incident had not taken place or if may be presumed to have had occurred not in a manner as reported--Prosecution has not established accusation against the appellant. 1995 SCMR 1345. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.- By this common judgment we intend to dispose of captioned Special Criminal ATA Appeals Bearing No. 221/2016 and 222/2016 filed by the Appellant/Convict Muhammad Ovais who has assailed the common judgment dated 25.08.2016 delivered by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism CourtsNo. V, Karachi, in respect of Crime Nos. 203/2015, Under Section 4/5, Explosive Substance Act r/with Section 7 of ATA 1997 of PS Feroze Abad Karachi and Crime No. 204/2015 Under Section 23(i) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 of PS Feroze Abad Karachi. The learned trial Court after full dressed trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant/convict under Section 265-H(ii) Cr.P.C. had found him guilty of an offence under Section 7 (i)…
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