This appeal has been preferred under section 417, Cr.P.C. Against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge' Zila Qazi/Special Judge, Chitral, dated. 17-10-1995, whereby the accused- respondents, involved in case F.I.R. No,43, dated 5-10-1989 under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act registered in Police Station Ayun Chitral. Were acquitted.
2. The complainant in this case is P.W.7 Zahir Shah who, in his report, stated that at 7-30 he was proceeding towards Chitral along with 8/9 persons and went inside the Garage to start the motor- car when an explosion occurred which injured Muhammad Karim, Shah Wali and Abdul Jalil etc.
3. It is to be noted that in the F.I.R. No one was held responsible for the offence and it was on 28-10- 1989 i,e, after 23/24 days of the occurrence that the present accused-respondents, along with seven others, were charged for the offence. The material evidence in the case consists of the statement of the complainant himself, P.W. Muhammad Karim and P.W. Shah Wali. The .
Complainant charged the accused-respondents and others after more than 20 days and could not disclose the source of implicating the accused. The statement of the other witness Muhammad Karim is also of no help to the prosecution as he has not given ocular account of the incident and simply stated that a month prior to the occurrence he and his brother had gone to attend a dinner hosted by Rehmat Wakil Shah accused and on return he was informed by his brother that Rehmat Wakil Shah and Muhammad Khan have planned his murder and, therefore, he would report against them. The statement of P.W. Shah Wali is also irrelevant as he has not alleged to have seen the accused either keeping Bomb in the Garage or in any way participating to commit the crime. In nutshell there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and, therefore, there was no way out for the learned trial Court but to acquit the accused including the present accused-respondents. It is curious to note that Rozi Khan accused-respondent No,2 has all along in the judgment been described as absconder and against whom perpetual warrant of arrest has been issued but it was still thought proper to file the appeal against him. It appears that this aspect of the case was e inadvertently overlooked. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed in liming.