Section 302/34 Explosives Act (VI of 1908), Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 417 (2A) The appellant did not disclose the name of the defendant / accused in his statement against the bad complainant in connection with the terrorism, explosion and operations and allegedly named the witnesses in the statement in section 161, CRPC. An FIR was registered four days after the incident and witnesses said they confessed that after consulting and complaining to the complainant, they made their statements at the relevant time on the witnesses. Recorded in the presence as highly skeptical, his statements were refused to be considered, the statements of the two witnesses of the prosecution did not appeal to the prudent mind as they did not appeal to the complainant. They did not reveal the name of the accused, nor did they link them to the FIR register, neither did the two witnesses assist. o Take the bodies or the injured to the eye Eye witnesses failed to prove the accused's association with the main accused persons The evidence on the capital's charge should be from unforgivable sources or strong circumstances should be supported by them. No eyewitnesses were present on the site who filed a dissent against the prosecution trial court after which the accused was acquitted after proper investigation and review of evidence, in an inappropriate decision. Appeal against dismissal was dismissed based on the absence of any illegality and misconduct.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
