| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2291 2026 SLD 2291 = 2026 MLD 206 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal ATA Appeal No. 469 of 2024, decided on 29th April, 2025.
Presented By: Rozi Khan Barrech and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Agha Nadir Shah for Appellant. Ms. Noor Jahan Kahoor, APG for the State.
Criminal ATA Appeal No. 469 of 2024, decided on 29th April, 2025.
Presented By: Rozi Khan Barrech and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Agha Nadir Shah for Appellant. Ms. Noor Jahan Kahoor, APG for the State.
RIAZ AHMAD---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Section: 4, 5
Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 6(2)(ee), 7(1)(ff), 11-F(1), (2), (6), 27-A, 21(I)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 38
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 348
(a) Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908) Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(ee), 7(1)(ff), 11-F(1), (2), (6), 27-A & 21(I)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38---Making or possessing explosive substances under suspicious circumstances, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Disclosure of the accused before police---Scope---Prosecution case was that a wireless handset, which contained two electric detonators and 04-kilogram and 250-grams grey coloured explosive materials was recovered from the possession of accused---It was an admitted fact that no remote control was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellant and during the course of the investigation no documents was brought on record that the accused/appellant belonged to the proscribed organization, which was also admitted by the Investigation Officer---Only evidence against the accused/appellant was that while he was in police custody, he made a disclosure before the police and the said disclosure was not admissible in view of Art.38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which stated that the confession made before the police was not admissible---There was no confessional statement under S.164, Cr.P.C of the accused/appellant before the Judicial Magistrate; as such, this piece of evidence was of no help to the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908) Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2)(ee), 7(1)(ff), 11-F(1), (2), (6), 27-A & 21(I)---Making or possessing explosive substances under suspicious circumstances, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Infirmities prosecution case---Prosecution case was that a wireless handset, which contained two electric detonators and 04-kilogram and 250-grams grey coloured explosive materials was recovered from the possession of accused---Allegedly, the accused/appellant was arrested from a road near, which was newly built in the name of China Pakistan Economic Corridor Road, which was a straight road, and from where the accused/appellant was allegedly apprehended the police…