High Court Acquits Accused in Explosive Substances Case Due to Lack of EvidenceTable of Contents
- The Background of the Criminal Appeal
- Why the Police Confession Failed in Court
- The Problem with the Recovery Location and Logic
- The Breakdown of the Safe Custody Chain
- Errors in the Statement of the Accused
- The Final Decision and Benefit of Doubt
The High Court of Balochistan recently delivered a significant judgment regarding the rights of the accused and the duties of the prosecution. This case involved an appellant named Riaz Ahmad who faced serious charges under the Explosive Substances Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act. Initially, a lower court sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment based on allegations that he carried explosive materials for a proscribed organization. However, the High Court identified several deep flaws in the prosecution’s story which eventually led to a full acquittal in explosive substances case.
The Background of the Criminal Appeal
The prosecution claimed that officials from the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) caught the appellant at New Sabzal Road in Quetta. According to their records, the police recovered over four kilograms of explosive material and detonators from a small suitcase in his hand. They further alleged that the appellant had ties to the BLA and planned to commit acts of terrorism. Despite these heavy accusations, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a single document proving the appellant’s membership in any banned group.
Why the Police Confession Failed in Court
A major pillar of the prosecution’s argument rested on a disclosure the appellant supposedly made while in police custody. The judges quickly pointed out that Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, strictly forbids using confessions made to the police as evidence. Since the appellant never recorded a voluntary statement before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the court viewed the police’s claim as legally worthless. This failure to follow proper legal procedures weakened the state’s position and supported the release in terrorism appeal.
The Problem with the Recovery Location and Logic
The court also questioned the physical reality of the arrest. The police stated they apprehended the appellant on a straight, wide road where they arrived in three official vehicles. The judges noted that any person carrying explosives would see such a large police presence from miles away and try to escape. It felt highly unnatural that a trained militant would simply stand still and wait for capture without any weapon to defend himself. This logical gap made the criminal appeal success much more likely as the story did not satisfy a prudent mind.
The Breakdown of the Safe Custody Chain
Evidence in explosive cases depends entirely on the “chain of custody.” This means the police must prove exactly who held the evidence from the moment of seizure until it reached the laboratory. In this case, the witnesses gave conflicting dates. One officer claimed he sent the parcels on the 9th, while the Investigating Officer insisted he handed them over on the 13th. Meanwhile, the laboratory report showed they received the items on the 11th. These contradictions proved that the police did not maintain safe custody, which effectively caused an invalid police confession and a loss of forensic credibility.
Errors in the Statement of the Accused
Furthermore, the trial court made a technical but fatal mistake during the original trial. Under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C., a judge must ask the accused about every piece of evidence used against them. The trial court never asked Riaz Ahmad about the forensic report or the transmission of the explosives. The High Court clarified that if a judge does not give the accused a chance to explain a specific piece of evidence, the court cannot use that evidence to convict them. This procedural error strongly justified the court sets aside conviction order.
The Final Decision and Benefit of Doubt
In the end, the High Court emphasized that the law requires the prosecution to prove its case beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even a single reasonable doubt is enough to grant freedom to an accused person. Because the police failed to prove the recovery, the membership in a proscribed group, or the safe handling of evidence, the court allowed the appeal. Consequently, the judges set aside the previous sentence and ordered the immediate release of the appellant. This case serves as a reminder that the judicial system protects individuals when the state fails to provide solid proof.
For professional assistance with law services and related legal matters, contact: Muhammad Amin, Advocate 📞 Phone: 0313-9708019 📧 Email: muhammadaminadvo111@gmail.com 📍 Office: Office No. 14, Zeb Plaza, University Road, Tahkal Payan, Peshawar