Citation Name: 2023 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ATIF ABBASS vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ATIF ABBASS VS State Ss. 4 & 5-a---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Recovery of explosive substance and firearms, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Safe custody of the recovered weapons at police station and their transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Scope---Prosecution case was that two kilograms explosive, safety fuse measuring about 5-feet, a match box containing three detonators and pistol 30-bore along with magazine and seven live bullets were recovered from the possession of the accused---Prosecution had proved that after recovery of said articles from possession of the accused, same were handed over to Investigating Officer, who handed over the same except detonators to Moharrir, who kept the same in safe custody and then handed over said parcels of samples to Police Official, who delivered the same intact to Forensic Science agency---Said witnesses stated about said facts in their testimony in the Court and their evidence remained un-shattered---Safe custody of said articles except detonators had been proved beyond shadow of doubt---Record showed that 3-detonators were recovered from possession of the accused, but detonator comprised upon elongated hollow metal tube containing explosive, however, in the report of Bomb Disposal Commander any colour, type, gauge, name of metal e.g. aluminium etc. or even availability of metal tube was not mentioned---Similarly, Bomb Disposal Commander neither extracted any explosive from stated detonators nor mentioned its origin/detail---Said report of Bomb Disposal Commander was mere ipse dixit and could not be made basis to hold that detonators were actually detonators falling within the definition of Explosive Substances act, 1908---Was essential to take out explosive material from the instrument statedly called as detonators and then had verified of the same from the expert, however, admittedly, Bomb Disposal Commander neither took out/extracted explosive from stated detonators nor sealed/sent the sample to Forensic Science agency for analysis---Recovered detonators could not be proved to be containing any explosive substance---Bomb Disposal Squad was meant to defuse the stated/expected explosive and prosecution could not produce any document/ notification in the case to show that Bomb Disposal Commander was an expert within the meaning of art. 59 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to conclusively opine about nature of the explosive rather such document produced and tendered by the prosecution itself reflected that sample of explosive would be taken out from recovered detonators and sent to Forensic Science agency for expert opinion to know its origin/nature---Forensic Science agency was notified expert in the case---Conviction recorded against the accused to the extent of recovery of said statedly recovered detonators was not sustainable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the accused under S. 7(ff) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997 was set-aside, conviction recorded under S. 5 of Explosive Substances act, 1908 was maintained but sentence was reduced from seven years to three years, in circumstances---appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ATIF ABBASS VS State Ss. 4 & 5-a---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Recovery of explosive substance and firearms, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Scope---Prosecution case was that two kilograms explosive, safety fuse measuring about 5-feet, a match box containing three detonators and pistol 30-bore along with magazine and seven live bullets were recovered from the possession of the accused---Relationship of the accused with any terrorist, terrorist organization/ proscribed organization could not be established---any material/evidence to fulfil ingredients of the offence defined under S. 6(2)(ee) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997, could not be brought on record by the prosecution---Prosecution in such state of affairs could not prove charge regarding offence under S. 7(ff) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997---Conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the accused under S. 7(ff) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997, was not sustainable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the accused under S. 7(ff) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997 was set-aside, conviction recorded under S. 5 of Explosive Substances act, 1908, was maintained but sentence was reduced from seven years to three years, in circumstances---appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ATIF ABBASS VS State Witness---Police witness---Scope---Police Officials are as good witnesses unless proved that they are having ill will or animosity against the accused/convict. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ATIF ABBASS VS State Ss. 4 & 5-a---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Recovery of explosive substance and firearms, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in--- Ocular account---Scope---Prosecution case was that two kilograms explosive, safety fuse measuring about 5-feet, a match box containing three detonators and pistol 30-bore along with magazine and seven live bullets were recovered from the possession of the accused---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and recovery witness---Said witnesses categorically deposed and supported case of the prosecution through their statements recorded during trial of the case---Testimony of said witnesses remained un-shattered inspite of searching cross-examination and their credit could not be shaken---any enmity or animosity whatsoever with respect to deposing falsely against the accused by said witnesses could not come on record---Recovery of said articles from possession of the accused had been proved by the prosecution--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the accused under S. 7(ff) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997, was set-aside, conviction recorded under S. 5 of Explosive Substances act, 1908, was maintained but sentence was reduced from seven years to three years in circumstances---appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ATIF ABBASS VS State Ss. 4 & 5-a---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13--- anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Recovery of explosive substance and firearms, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Defence plea---Scope---Prosecution case was that two kilograms explosive, safety fuse measuring about 5-feet, a match box containing three detonators and pistol .30-bore along with magazine and seven live bullets were recovered from the possession of the accused---accused had taken specific plea that he was abducted much prior to the registration of the case and subsequently roped in the case at belated stage---accused himself was a best witness to depose entire detail that who abducted him, where he was kept, when he was brought to the place of occurrence and of course law had provided a chance to him in that behalf through S. 340(2), Cr.P.C. while appearing his own witness in support of his version but he did not opt so---although non-appearance of accused under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C., for disproving allegation levelled against him did not create any inference against him yet when he had taken specific plea and regarding said plea, he was the best witness, then he could prove his said version by appearing so and his non-appearance was to be taken as withholding the best evidence---accused had produced copy of FIR which was got recorded by his real brother regarding his said abduction but he did not produce his said brother in support of the same and again withheld best evidence---When case of the prosecution had been kept in juxtaposition with such defence version/plea taken by the accused, then it had become crystal clear that defence version was neither proved nor any dent was created in the case of the prosecution rather prosecution version to extent of recovery of 2-kgs explosive, safety fuse and pistol .30-bore along with magazine and bullets from the possession of the accused had been proved beyond shadow of doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the accused under S. 7(ff) of anti-Terrorism act, 1997 was set-aside, conviction recorded under S. 5 of Explosive Substances act, 1908 was maintained but sentence was reduced from seven years to three years, in circumstances---appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ATIF ABBASS vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR