| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1279 2018 SLD 1279 2018 MLD 835 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr.A. No. 222-M of 2016, decided & hearing on 7-8-2017.
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Assadullah for Appellant. Barrister Asad Hamidur Rehman for the State.
Cr.A. No. 222-M of 2016, decided & hearing on 7-8-2017.
MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Assadullah for Appellant. Barrister Asad Hamidur Rehman for the State.
RAEES KHAN
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S.15-AA---Act of terrorism, attempt to cause explosion or for making and keeping explosives with intent to endanger life and property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that during search operation, the accused was found in suspicious condition; from his personal possession, one .30-bore pistol with ten live rounds and one hand grenade were recovered---Prosecution in support of its case had produced four witnesses---Record showed that hand grenade allegedly recovered was in fact taken into possession on 15.1.2016, but by manipulation and overwriting it had been changed to 16.1.2016---Hand grenade allegedly recovered was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after two days of its recovery and prosecution could not give satisfactory explanation in that regard---Official, who drafted murasila had been abandoned and was not examined so as to explain the position---Record showed that prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt as charged against accused to prove that he had in fact intended to be involved in a case under S.7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Delay of two days for sending the hand grenade to Forensic Science Laboratory proved that the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden of proof---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique and others PLD 2009 SC 11; Aftab Ahmad v. The State 2004 MLD 1337 and Muhammad Ahmad alias Danyal v. The State 2005 YLR 954 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of slight doubt in the case of prosecution, would go in favour of the accused and would be sufficient for his acquittal. Aftab Ahmad v. The State 2004 MLD 1337 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, J.--- By this common judgment, we shall also decide Cr.A No.260-M/2016, as both the appeals have arisen from the judgment dated 03.11.2016 of the…
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