MUHAMMAD HAMZA vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD HAMZA VS State S. 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 4---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Act of terrorism, possession of pistol, hand grenades, Kalashnikov and bullets---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural story of the prosecution---Scope---Prosecution case was that one pistol .30-bore was recovered from the possession of accused while two hand grenades, a Kalashnikov and bullets were recovered from the jeep driven by the accused---Record showed that the police party was comprised of seven members with official weapons and vehicle also---Crime scene, as evident from cross-examination of the witnesses and the rough site plan, was surrounded by almost open area---In presence of police force escape of two assailants who while running were not in possession of any weapon was a highly unnatural story and could not be accepted by a prudent and wise mind---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 17 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAMZA VS State appreciation of evidence---Preponderance of probabilities---Scope---Strict standard of proof is required so as to prove the guilt which cannot base on Preponderance of probabilities but it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Para. 26 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAMZA VS State S. 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 4---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Act of terrorism, possession of pistol, hand grenades, Kalashnikov and bullets---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that one pistol .30-bore was recovered from the possession of accused while two hand grenade, a Kalashnikov and bullets were recovered from the jeep driven by the accused---Record showed that Bomb Disposal Constable in his examination in chief stated that he was summoned at Police Station by SHO for defusing the hand grenades where he arrived and performed the obligations on his part---Said witness replied in cross-examination that he met Moharrar of the Police Station who handed over to him the hand grenades for defusing and that he did not meet any other Police Officer there---When the statement of Head Constable/Moharrar was perused, he was completely silent about the visit of Bomb Disposal Constable in the Police Station---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 18 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAMZA VS State S. 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 4---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Act of terrorism, possession of pistol, hand grenades, Kalashnikov and bullets---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chain of safe custody---Scope---Prosecution case was that one pistol .30-bore was recovered from the possession of accused while two hand grenades, a Kalashnikov and bullets were recovered from the jeep driven by the accused---Bomb Disposal Constable in his examination in chief maintained that he was summoned in the Police Station where he reached and prepared parcels of hand grenades in two small wooden boxes for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency---Even in that respect, HC/Moharrar was silent as he did not say a single word on the basis whereof even it might be presumed that Bomb Disposal Constable came to Police Station for that assignment---Statement of Inspector that at his request Bomb Disposal Constable made the sealed parcels of hand grenades was of no worth for the prosecution---Bomb Disposal Constable had defused the hand grenades while coming to Police Station, why on the same day he did not make those into sealed parcels and why that exercise was deferred was not understandable---Inspector in his examination in chief claimed that, he received the parcels of hand grenades from Moharrar of Police Station which he had taken to Civil Defence Office where other Bomb Disposal Constable separated the explosive material from each hand grenade for expert opinion---Again the statement of HC/Moharrar was short of any evidence that he handed over the parcels of hand grenades to Inspector---Inspector in his examination in chief further added that after the collection of explosive material through sealed parcels, he handed over the same to a Constable who deposited the same in the Office of Forensic Science Agency---Report of Forensic Science Agency had negated his version as according to that document he was not that Constable but Inspector who had submitted the parcels in that office---However, Constable in his examination in chief never maintained about receiving of any parcel of sample of explosive material and deposited thereof in the office of Forensic Science Agency---Statement of said witness was only to the extent that in his presence explosive material was taken into possession vide a recovery memo---Another Constable in his examination in chief stated about receiving of parcels of Kalashnikov and bullets which he had deposited in the Office of Forensic Science Agency---Said Constable was the same official who had also been shown as an eye-witness and present at the time of occurrence but in his examination in chief he did not say even a single word in that regard which had finally smashed the prosecution's case---Said circumstances made it clear that in the case in hand 'safe custody' and 'chain of safe custody' both were under heavy clouds of doubts which were the ultimate adverse blows for the prosecution---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Paras. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 25 of the judgment]

MUHAMMAD HAMZA vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 104 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported