Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,436,34

Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: 3,4

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 436 34---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 4---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, common intention, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused was present along with three of his accomplices in a house when the bomb went off killing all three of them---Rental agreement of the house where the explosion took place was not in the name of the accused and there was no evidence that he lived in the house where the explosion took place or was linked to it in any way---Mother of the accused had stated under oath that the accused lived with her---Medical evidence did not tend to support the prosecution case but rather tended to support the accused persons case that he was a bypasser---Medical evidence revealed that three persons who had died in the bomb blast were severely disfigured which was to be expected, as according to the evidence of Bomb Disposal Unit expert a large amount of explosive had been used in a small room and as such severe injuries were expected to those present in the room---Accused, on the other hand, had received very minor injuries which indicated that he was not in the room at the time when the explosion had occurred and that he might well have been a bypasser---No evidence was available as to where the accused was when he was taken to the hospital i.e. whether he was inside the building or outside the building---Accused was not arrested on the scene of the incident but rather at the hospital where he had gone to receive treatment---Only piece of compelling evidence against the accused appeared to be that he had named one of the accomplices---Such evidence alone was insufficient to convict the accused---Prosecution had not proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Anwar Shamim and another v. The State 2010 SCMR 1791; Karim Nawaz v. The State 2009 SCMR 1105 and Zeeshan alias…

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