SORAT KHAN vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 406 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SORAT KHAN VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 427---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for causing explosion on the convey of a Judge, due to which one child died and thirty seven persons got injured---Record showed that soon after the blast, the Bomb Disposal Team visited the place of occurrence and opined that the explosive material of 40/50 Kgs were installed in a Alto Car and the same was exploded through remote control---Sole clue which led the police to arrest and investigate the accused was the ownership of Alto Car---Allegedly, the accused was the purchaser and last possessor of the said car---Without mentioning the details of vehicle it could not be presumed that the said Alto vehicle was the same, which was used in the crime---Statement of seller of vehicle/witness was also very much important for the case of prosecution, who brought on record that in the year 2015 two persons including the accused approached him for the purchase of vehicle which was sold out to them at sale consideration amount of Rs.1,20,000/----Statement of that witness showed that he had absolutely failed to mention the exact date, time or month when such transaction had taken place---Even said witness had mentioned wrongly the year of transaction as 2015 while the incident had taken place on 11 November 2014---Statement of that witness was also silent to the effect that from whom he had purchased the said vehicle and for what time period such vehicle had remained in his possession and was subsequently sold out---Said witness had also failed to disclose the further details of vehicle including the chassis and engine numbers and to bring on record that as to whose name was mentioned in the registration documents and transfer letter; witness did not produce any Iqrar Nama or agreement establishing that the vehicle in question was earlier purchased by him and subsequently he sold out the same to the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charge against the accused through confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

SORAT KHAN vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 406 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR