Muhammad Zubair vs State S — 2025 YLR 1963 ISLAMABAD

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

Muhammad Zubair VS State S. 120-B---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal conspiracy, keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of six days in sending the samples to laboratory for analysis---Effect---Accused were found in possession of a plastic bag containing 910 grams explosive substance, 10-detonators, 05 meters prima card wire, two 30-bore pistols with 19-live bullets---Record showed that there was delay of six days in sending the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis---Appellants had been taken into custody on 03.01.2023 and all the recoveries had been effected on the said date by complainant---National Forensic Science Agency Report in respect of explosive substance reflected that same was received on 09.01.2023 after delay of 06 days, wherein the submitting authority referred in the report was SSP Investigation through constable who only received report wherein Investigation Officer had transmitted two prima cords and two sample parcels said to contain explosive substance each vide Road Certificate to National Forensic Science Agency, but surprisingly, the National Forensic Science Agency Report was silent with reference to Constable and no justified explanation had been rendered in that regard---Ordinarily the delay in sending samples would go against the prosecution case, especially, in case of narcotics under Chemical Analyst Rules, where 72 hours timeline was provided which was directory in nature but in this case where a capital sentence is required to be passed the prosecution is under obligation to show their extra ordinary vigilance and expertise to perform all lawful obligation within shortest possible time to avoid any unnecessary objection in the trial by the defence and to demonstrate transparency in such type of sensitive cases failing which adverse inference has to be drawn---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Zubair vs State S — 2025 YLR 1963 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR