Muhammad Hanif Tayyab vs Insha Ullah S — 2024 PCrLJ 1579 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 Hanif Tayyab VS Insha Ullah S.7 (1) (ff)--- Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340 (2)--- Terrorism and recovery of explosive substance---Appreciation of evidence---Evidence on oath, not given---Defence plea---Not proved--- Accused was convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life by Trial Court---Validity---Improvised Explosive Device (I.E.D.) containing explosive was found from the possession of accused who was resident of city "K", and he came to city "L" having that explosive in his possession---Such possession of explosive reflected that it was for endangering life or causing serious injury to property---Offences of having possession of explosive substance without lawful justification was proved against accused---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 plea of false implication and his abduction as well as detention for a long period, then regarding the same, he himself was the best witness to prove his version by appearing so and his non-appearance amounted to withholding the best evidence---High Court maintained conviction of accused but reduced sentence of imprisonment for life to 14 years---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1579 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Hanif Tayyab VS Insha Ullah S.7 (1)(ff)---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.4---Terrorism and recovery of explosive substance---Appreciation of evidence---Chain of safe custody of recovered case property and sample not established---Accused was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment by Trial Court---Validity---Safe custody of allegedly recovered case property and parcel of sample was to be proved, otherwise conviction was not possible--- Recovery of explosive substance was not a mere corroborative piece of evidence rather it constituted an offence itself and entailed punishment--- Prosecution failed to prove safe custody of two parcels of samples containing defused hand grenade and detonating assembly (allegedly recovered from the possession of accused)--- High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused as conclusiveness and reliability of such report of Bomb Disposal Technician was vitiated and was not capable of sustaining conviction--- Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Muhammad Hanif Tayyab vs Insha Ullah S — 2024 PCrLJ 1579 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ