MUHAMMAD ASJAD vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1959 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD ASJAD VS State Ss. 6(2)(ee), 7(1)(ff) & 27---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 5---Act of terrorism, possession of explosive substance without lawful justification---Re-appraisal of evidence---Presumption of proof against accused for possessing explosives without lawful justification---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Record showed that the petitioner (convict) was apprehended having in his possession a substantial quantity (2.1 Kilograms) of material, which on examination by the Ballistic Expert was confirmed to be explosive substance, within the contemplation of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ('the Act') and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ("ATA")---Eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution, who testified the veracity of the said recovery, were public servants having no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner in a case of such a grave nature entailing punishment of life imprisonment---Coupled with the recovery, the prosecution witnesses were consistent in their statements regarding the safe custody and transmission of the recovered material in sealed sample parcel to the Forensic Science Agency---Trace Chemistry Analysis Report confirmed that the representative sample of the recovered material sent for forensic analysis was dynamite, a high explosive, thereby bringing the case against the petitioner within the mischief of the Act and the ATA---More importantly, the petitioner failed to provide any lawful justification for having explosive substance in his possession; he also could not establish the possibility of his false implication in the case---Prosecution had been able to prove through reliable evidence the recovery of the explosive substance from the direct possession of the petitioner thereby exposing him to the mischief of Section 27A of the ATA - presumption of a 'purpose of terrorism'---Failure of the petitioner to produce any evidence, leave alone of credence, of his lawful justification for the possession of explosive substance, showed that he was unable to rebut the presumption drawn against him - Guilt of the petitioner to have committed the offence of "terrorism" within the contemplation of Section 6(2)(ee) of the ATA had been proved to the hilt---However prosecution had been able to establish only recovery of the explosive substance without any live electric circuit from the direct possession of the petitioner, while he was present at a road junction, and that too, coupled with the fact that the petitioner lacked any prior criminal history---These were mitigating circumstances that warranted a reduced sentence---Therefore, while upholding petitioner's conviction under Section 7(1)(ff) of the ATA, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to reduce his sentence of simple imprisonment for life to simple imprisonment for fourteen years under Section 7(1)(ff) of the ATA---Petition was converted into appeal and partly allowed.

MUHAMMAD ASJAD vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1959 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR