MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE alias BOBI alias HUSSAIN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 12 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE alias BOBI alias HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Identification of the accused persons---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused hurled a bomb/cracker near the gate of Imam Bargah which exploded in result of which thirty two persons received explosive injuries out of them one person succumbed to injuries---Allegedly sole eye-witness who was complainant of the case identified the accused---Record showed that complainant had not seen the accused persons before and only got a fleeting glimpse of them---Complainant did not give any hulia of the accused persons in the FIR and his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. which greatly undermined his ability to pick out any accused with certainty/accuracy at identification parade---Complainant apparently made sketches of the accused but not immediately after the incident but shortly before the identification parade and after the accused were arrested raising doubt as to whether he was shown the accused before he made the sketches and even otherwise it was not clear that the sketches matched the appearance of the accused---In the present case, it was 08.00 p.m. in the month of October when the incident occurred and as such it would have been quite dark and therefore extremely difficult for the witness to accurately identify both of the accused especially as they both remained on one bike and did not dismount before speeding away keeping in view that there was no evidence as to the source of light---Record was not clear as to how far away the witness was from the accused and from what angle he had seen them---Complainant did not claim that he had seen them from close range and as such that also would go against his accurate and correct identification of the accused---Circumstances established that even if the eye-witness was present at the time of the incident based on the reasons mentioned above he would not have been able to correctly, safely and reliably identify the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE alias BOBI alias HUSSAIN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 12 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported