Jamshaid Hussain vs State S — 2025 MLD 447 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

Jamshaid Hussain VS State S. 7---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13(d)---Act of terrorism, making or possessing explosive substances under suspicious circumstances---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Effect---Prosecution case was that 9-mm pistols, live rounds, detonators, explosive substances and prima cord were recovered from the possession of accused persons---Complainant had stated in his Fard-e-Bayan that Bomb Disposal Team had accompanied him when they reached the place of recovery after receiving spy information, but the Incharge of Bomb Disposal Team, while recording his statement before the Trial Court, stated that already before their arrival, the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) had been conducting search of vehicles by erecting a blockade---Apart from that, said Incharge of Bomb Disposal Team stated before the trial Court that his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer at the spot, whereas he was not the Investigating Officer of the case---Investigation Officer of the case deposed contrary to the statement recorded by Incharge of Bomb Disposal Team---Complainant had alleged that he separated the samples from the recovered explosive material and prepared the parcels, whereas the Incharge of Bomb Disposal Team, on the contrary, stated that he had separated the samples from recovered explosive material---Incharge of Bomb Disposal Team also failed to identify the appellants with their names before the Trial Court, though he alleged himself to be present at the spot when recoveries were made from the appellants as per prosecution version---Prosecution did not mention the name of the driver, in the calendar of witnesses, who allegedly had taken the Marasala i.e. Fard-e-Bayan to the CTD Police Station, as the police station was approximately 84/85 kilometers away from the alleged place of recovery and, as per prosecution witnesses, the driver did not return back to the place of incident, whereas the Investigating Officer stated contrary to the other statements of the prosecution witnesses and admitted that the driver received the copy of the FIR after its registration and took the same to the alleged place of incident---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Jamshaid Hussain vs State S — 2025 MLD 447 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD