SYED ABDUR RAHMANJ:-Accused Jamshaid has been challaned by SHO Railway police Station Bin Qasim, Karachi under Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act.
2. Beiefly stated the prosecution story is that on 5.10.1987 at about 2. A.M. ASM lshfaq, who was on duty at reception/manohtyard, Bin Qasim, telephonically informed the Railway police Station, Bin Qasim that TXR Jamshaid Ahmad, the present accused, had informed him on telephone that one bomb was lying in the Train Examiner's office in reception yard near the staircase. On such report, head constable Zulfiqar and constable Muhammad Ashraf cordoned the area immediately. At 3.30 A.M. Mohammad Aqil Shah, Bomb Diaposal platoon Commander went to the scene of offence and after defusing the so called bomb took it in his possession. At about 5 A.M. SHO Nazir Hussain Bajwa reached the Scene of offence and made enquiries from accused Jamshaid who showed the place where bomb was seen by him lying under the staircase. He prepared mashirnama and registered FIR. The report of Bomb Disposal Squad Platoon Commander was received which showed that it was a shell containing explosive material. On 11.10.1987 S.H.O. Mohammed Asghar Railway Police Bin Qasim took up the investigation. On 24.12.1987 accused Jamsahid Ahmad and P.Ws. Nazakat and Khamiso attended the Railway police Station,Bin Qasim and were examined by the S.H.O. For the first time Nazakat and Khamiso disclosed that they had seen the bomb in the hand of accused Jamshaid on that night immediately before the incident, who had brought it from the jungle from outside the office of the Train Examiners and had placed it under the staircases in presence of Nazakat and Khamiso and the accused had therefore given telephonic message to the Station Master. On the basis of these statements S.H.O. Mohammad Asghar arrested accused Jamshaid and after obtaining necessary sanction challaned him as shown above.
3. A charge was framed aganist the accused to which he pleaded not guiIty and claimed to be tried. He has stated that he was on duty in Railway Marshallingyard on the night of incident. While search for cotton waste under the staircase to make fire and smoke to scare away the mosquitoes, he saw a bomb lying there. He infprmed the staf and other persons in the office and then telephoned the Station Master to send for Bomb Disposal Squad and police. The police came there and after some time instead of laying hands on the actual culprits falsely implicated and challaned him in this case.
4. The main point for determination in this case is Whether the accused was found in possession and control of an explosive substance with intent, by means thereby, to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property in Pakistan? My findings on this point is in the negative for the following reasons:- REASONS.
5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined P.W. Nazakat Hussain as Ex.2, who was working as a helper in the Garrage under the accused and P.W. Khamiso Khan who was a S.S. Fitter under the accused as Eye witnesses. Prosecution has also examied pir Mohammad Khan Ex.4 palatoon Commander Bomb Disposal Squad had defused the bomb and inspected it and given the findings mentioned above, P.W. Nazir Hussain Bajwa Additional Sub-Inspector Ex.5 who had partly inspected the case in the begining but he could not detected the crime and P.W.S.H.O. Raja Mohammad Asghar who had inspected the case finally and challaned the accused.
6. The evidence in this case against the accused is only that of P.Ws. Nazakat and Khamiso. It is alleged by these witnesses that they had seen accused Jamshaid coming from Jungle from outside the office of Train Examiner with a bomb like object in his hand and on being questioned by them he told them that it whs a bomb. Thereafter he placed it under the staircase and telephoned the Station Master. The evidence on the face of it appears to be absolutely absurd and unbelievable. If the accused had brought the bomb from the Jungle from outside the Train Examiners office and had been detected and seen by PWS. Nazakat and Khamiso there was no reason for him to have kept it under the staircase and then telephoned the police. His natural conduct would have been to keep the outside the office or at the most on the table of the office and to have stated that he had seen the bomb lying outside in the jungle and then he could have phoned the Station Master or police. A part from that it is admitted by both these witnesses as well as sub-inspector Nazir HUssain Bajwa that both Nazakat and Khamiso were present when the police reached the Train Examiners office after the telephone. Both these P.Ws, also heard accused Jamshaid stating to I.O. That the bomb was seen by him lying under the staircase and was kept there by some unknown person. Still they did not disclose this fact to the police or to Sub-Inspector Nazir Hussain Bajwa. On the contrary when Sub-Inspector Nazir Hussain Bajwa had made oral enguiries from both these witnesses they had confirmwd the statement of accused Jamshaid.
Their allegation that they had informed TXR lslamuddin on the next day that accused Jamshaid had himself kept the Bomb there is also unbelievable becuase the information according to their- own statement was oral and was not writing. Nothing could have prevented the witnesses from writing a letter the their higher officers to the police if they had acutally seen accused Jamshaid bringing the bomb inside the office. These witnesses were available to the SHO Mohammad Asghar for all the time till 24.12.1987 and were also orally examined by him as he has claimed but they never told him that had been the bomb with accused Jamshaid. Their having stated that the bomb was planted there by accused Jamshaid, after such a long period and under such circumstances, cannot be believed by a judicial mindar even by a person who has got the least of common sense in his heid.
7. The law as to the witnesses late appearance before the police is so well settled that it leaves on scope for beliving P.Ws. Nazakat and Khamso. In the case of Rullia Sam Vs. Crown a D.B. Of Lahore High Court in AIR 1923 Lahore, 438 (2) has held that when a witness keeps quiet for many days after the occurance and comes forward after the police has made a discovery, he is not a reliable witnesses, In Sirajdin Vs. Kala reported in PLD 1964 S.C.26, the Court rejected the evidence of the witnesses whose first appearance before the police was doubted and referred to the case of Sikander li Vs. State reported in PLD 1963 S.C. 17.1n Buddho Vs. State reported in PLD 1965 (W.P.)
Karachi, 76, a Division Bench of this Court ruled out of consideration the statment of an eye witness recorded only 4 days after the incident. 1, am therefore, ofthe cleaf view that the evidedce of P.Ws.
Nazakat and Khamiso which was recorded by SHO Raja MOhammad Ashgar after more then one month of the incident not be relied upon in the least and should be rejected out right. Both these P.Ws. Nazakat and khamiso as well as accused jamshaid were called as suspects by SHO Raja Mohammad Asghar and their natural anxiety in these circumstances to save their own skin can be very well understood even if it was at the cost of implicating accused Jamshaid.
8. A part from that the version of P.Ws. Nazakat Hussain and Khamiso before the first investingating officer Sub-Inspector Nazir Hussain Bajwa as well as before S.H.O. Raja Mohammad Asghar from 5.10.1987 upto 24.12.1987 was that they have not seen the accused bringing the so called Bomb from outside the office of Train Examines but had been informed by the accused that the Bomb like object was lying under the staircase benath the cottonwaste and neither they had seen accused Jamshaid nor any-body else Keeping the Bomb under the staircase nor had accused seen or claimed to have seen anybody keeping the bomb under the staircase, It was tjr the first time after 24.12.1987 that P.Ws. Nazakat Hussain and Khamiso made an improvement on their earlier statment to the extent of complete somerso and calim that thay had seen accused Jamshaid bringing the Bomb from Jugle outside the Train Examiner Office and Keeping it under the staircase. Such improvement and somersuaIt by these two prosecution witness can not be believed at all and has to sidcarded from the evidence. 1 had an opportunity of watching the demeanour of these eye- withenesses as well as of SHO Mohammad Asghar. 1 am fully satisfied that both these witnesses were speaking a lie and that SHO Mohammad Asghar was an Officer without any brain who decided to believe their evidence, It also appears to me that the investingation officer Mohammad Asghar has no conscience, in that, when he could not detect the true and real culpirits of the incident he decided to falsely implicate the first informant himself i.e. Accused Jamshaid, in order to satisfy his superiors who must he pressing him to datect the crime.
9. Under the circumstance I hold accused Jamshaid to be not guiIty and acquit him of the above charge. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.