Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: 4,5

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 40

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: 23(1)(a),32

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Act of terrorism, possession of unlicensed arms, keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, proof of information received from accused---Appreciation of evidence---Corroboration of evidence---Testimony of police officials--- Scope--- Prosecution case against accused was that he, during the course of investigation in another case had disclosed that he had concealed huge quantity of arms, ammunition and explosive material in a grave---Accused voluntarily led the police party to the graveyard and pointed out the grave---Police, during the digging of the grave, recovered arms, ammunition and explosive material---Mashirnama of recovery was prepared in the presence of mashirs, which was signed by both the mashirs---Mashirs had fully supported the version of the complainant and one of them had denied the assertion that the mashirnama was prepared at police station---Official of Bomb Disposal Unit had also corroborated the prosecution case and had admitted during cross-examination that the entire arms, ammunition and explosive material was recovered from one graveyard---No proof of enmity between the complainant and the prosecution witnesses was brought on record---Reports of Bomb Disposal Unit and Forensic Science Laboratory regarding arms, ammunition and explosive substance were sufficient to prove that they could be used for demolishing the law and order situation and creating a sense of insecurity, fear and terrorism in public-at-large---Prosecution had succeeded in bringing the guilt of accused at home and had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeals were dismissed. Askar Jan v. Muhammad Daud 2010 SCMR 1604 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Testimony of police officials---Scope---Police official, being prosecution witness, by itself cannot be considered as a valid reason to discard his statement---Mere status as a police official alone does not prejudice the competence…

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