| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 2086 2025 SLD 2086 = 2025 SCMR 844 |
Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2021, decided on 14th January, 2025. (Against judgment dated 01.02.2016 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Crl. A. No. 62 of 2011 and S.C.R. No. 01-T of 2011).
Present: Athar Minallah, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ
Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Sajjad Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025.
HAMEEDULLAH ---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE ---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 120-B, 302, 324, 435, 436
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 120-B, 302, 324, 435 & 436---Criminal conspiracy, qatl-i-amd, attempt to qatl-i-amd and causing damage to property---Re-appraisal of evidence---Suicide bombing---Location of prosecution witnesses--- Benefit of doubt---Accused was alleged to be a suicide bomber wearing explosive jacket and was apprehended from the place of occurrence where two suicide bombers had already detonated themselves---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death--Validity---Suicide bomber, who had detonated explosives, had also used pellets which had caused severe injuries to several innocent victims in a large radius--There was no explanation as to how complainant and six officials accompanying him, and the accused and two unidentified co-accused remained unharmed--Presence of witnesses at crime scene was not proved through unimpeachable evidence, nor the fact that accused was apprehended in the manner as was deposed by prosecution witnesses---Accused and complainant, who were 30 paces from the suicide bomber when the explosion took place, could not remain unscathed, and in such a situation of extreme distress and commotion, no one could identify or apprehend another person wearing a jacket laden with explosives---It was an incident in which impact and its harm was seen much further than thirty paces--Prosecution did not bring on record any evidence to establish that accused was a member of proscribed organization or that he was motivated by or was working for a terrorist group---Prosecution failed to discharge its obligation of proving guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentences handed down by Trial Court and upheld by High Court and acquitted the accused from all charges framed against him by extending benefit of doubt to him as of right---Appeal was allowed.