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---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---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---Withholding material 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 the prosecution had failed to link the purchaser or seller with the other as number of persons against whom it was asserted that they remained previous owners of the vehicle were neither associated in the investigation nor produced during trial---Even the executants of sale/purchase agreements and receipt had not been produced, thus such documents could not be taken into consideration---Prosecution had failed to associate in the investigation number of persons against whom the prosecution had asserted that prior to purchase of vehicle in question by the accused, the same remained in possession of the said persons as owners for certain period---Prosecution failed to produce any witness who was the central figure and the entire story revolved around him, then the prosecution story would become doubtful and could not be believed in toto---No explanation on the part of prosecution was available that as to why the evidence of those witnesses was withheld, therefore a presumption under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahdat, 1984, could fairly be drawn that had the said witnesses been examined in the court their evidence would have been un-favourable to the prosecution---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