Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908

Section: 4/5

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7(ii)

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (VI of 1908)-- ----Ss. 4/5--Anti-Terrorism Act, (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(ii)--Conviction and sentence--It is prosecution case that petitioner was caught red handed while he was carrying a cloth bag, which contained explosive substance weighing 1150 grams wrapped in a polythene bag, four detonators wrapped in blue polythene, a match box and two safety fuses--Twenty grams explosive material was separated and was sent to Punjab Forensic Science Agency for chemical analysis-- This Court in a number of cases has held that testimony of official witnesses is as good as any other private witness unless it is proved that they have animus against accused--Held: It is a well settled proposition of law that as long as material aspects of evidence have a ring of truth, Courts should ignore minor discrepancies in evidence--When person who is himself seized with first hand information does not appear on oath and only produces witnesses, this move lowers sanctity of defence version simply for reason that accused was a best witness to depose entire detail as to when and who abducted him, what was reason behind this, where he was kept, who brought him to place of occurrence, why he was falsely involved in case etc--When petitioner took a specific plea and he was a best witness for same then his non-appearance is to be taken as withholding of best evidence. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Art. 119--Burden of proof-- According to Article 119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, burden to prove any particular fact lies on person who wishes Court to believe its existence--There is no denial to this fact that prosecution has to discharge burden of proving case beyond reasonable doubt--However, once prosecution becomes successful in discharging said burden, it is incumbent on accused who had taken a specific defence plea to prove same with certainty but petitioner has failed to prove same--The High Court has correctly appreciated material aspects of case and conclusions drawn are in line with guidelines enunciated by this Court on subject--Counsel for petitioner has not been able to point out any legal or factual error in impugned judgment,…

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