' AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.---This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 20th May, 2005 passed by Special Judge Anti-Terrorism, Khuzdar, whereby; the appellant was found guilty under section 4 of the Explosive Substances. Act read with sections 6(c), 6(n), (2) and 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1997) and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favour of appellant.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 31st December, 2005, a case under sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, was registered in Police Station HITE, Hub on the report of Syed Azmat Husain Shah, IP/S.H.O., wherein; it was alleged that on the said date, during special gashe he heard explosion near "Nazar Chorangi" and on enquiry came to know that explosion had occurred near "Santri Post" of Leeda Rest House, whereupon; he went there, in the meanwhile he received information by Muhammad Ramzan driver that on hearing explosion, he came out of his house and found one person running towards Jam Colony, who appeared to be from Marri tribe, whereupon; he along with other police officials and Muhammad Ramzan driver went A towards Jam Colony, where Muhammad Ramzan pointed out to a person, and stated that he was the person who was running away from the place of occurrence. He along with other police officials apprehended that person, who disclosed his name as Ali Dad son of Waz Dad, caste Marri resident of Kohlu. After registration of case, investigation was entrusted to Syed Nazeer Husain Shah, S.-I., who prepared site-plan Exh.P/1-A and took into possession six photographs of the place of occurrence, as well as; recorded statements of witnesses, and after usual investigation handed over the papers to IP/S.H.O. Syed Azmat Husain Shah, who submitted challan before the Anti- Terrorism Court, Khuzdar.
3. On commencement of trial, charge was read over to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty, whereafter; prosecution in order to substantiate the accusation produced eight witnesses. At the end of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein; he denied all the allegations and claimed innocence. He also got recorded his statement on oath, but did not produce any witness in defence.
4. On conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as mentioned above.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned special prosecutor. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the appellant was apprehended in the instant case merely because according to prosecution case, he was found running away from the place of occurrence, which might raise suspicion, but could not prove the charge beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellant. He further contended that even story about running away of the appellant from the place of occurrence and apprehension by the police is contradictory, as such; no implicit reliance could be placed on such story.
' On the other hand, the learned special prosecutor supported the judgment.
6. We have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the evidence on record. The prosecution case is solely based upon statement of P.W.5 Muhammad Ramzan, who stated that after performance of his duty, he went to his house and as soon he entered, he heard explosion, whereupon; he came out and saw the appellant and another old man running away, who entered into a factory, whereupon; he informed the S.H.O., who arrested the appellant from the said factory. In cross-examination, he admitted that whenever an explosion occurs, people present nearby run away being frighten. The other prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of this witness so far apprehension of the appellant from the factory is concerned, but according to those witnesses, he was arrested from Jam Colony. The appellant could not be held guilty for causing explosion without any other evidence on record connecting him with the commission of offence merely on the ground that he was seen running away, as conviction can only be based on tangible evidence implicating the accused in the commission of offence beyond any shadow of doubt, because it is natural for the people to leave hurriedly the place where explosion occurs and rightly admitted so by P.W.5 Muhammad Ramzan. It may further be observed that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of legal proof, as such; no conviction can be sustained on mere suspicion. In this regard, we are fortified by the judgment reported in PLD 1964 Pesh: Page 59, wherein; it was observed as under:-- "It follows from the above discussion, that though the evidence of ballistic expert has a corroborative value, it alone cannot be made a basis of conviction. However, morally convinced a Judge may feel as to the truth of a particular fact, unless there is a legal proof of its existence, he cannot take it as "proved", and moral certainty or suspicion, however, grave, cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. In this connection I may profitably quote the words of caution of Mr. Justice Darling in the trial of Steinie Morrison when addressing jury, he said:-- "All that about the revolver, and so on, is very suspicious, gentlemen, but you know you must not convict a man on one suspicion; you must not convict him on a thousand suspicions; you must not add a thousand suspicious circumstances together and say, 'that is proof'. No you must find some where a solid anchorage upon which you can say, 'I am secure of this basis'."
' In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove charge against the appellant, as such; he is entitled to acquittal.
' Hereinabove are the reasons of our short order, dated 16th March, 2009, whereby; the appellant was acquitted of the charge.