An anti-terrorism court has acquitted a man in two cases pertaining to possession of explosives and illicit arms.
Abdul Mubeen alias Mubeen had been charged with possessing an unlicensed 9mm pistol and a hand grenade within the remits of the Kalri police station in May this year.
The ATC-XVII judge, who conducted the trial at the judicial complex inside the central prison, announced his order after recording evidence and final arguments from both sides. The judge observed that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its charges against the accused.
Pointing out flaws in the investigation, the judge said that the prosecution case was silent about the time of the arrest, nor did the police incorporate any private person to act as witness.
"It is pertinent to note that IO Liaquat and ASI Habib failed to ask the accused from where the accused got such alleged hand grenade and 9mm pistol and where he was going and all these facts bring a dent to the prosecution story and not sufficient evidence [was placed] to connect the accused with the offence he has been charged with," he noted.
The judge said the manner in which the prosecution story had been told appeared to be not free from doubt. "False implication of the accused in above circumstances could not be ruled. I have no hesitation to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt to accused person beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt," he said. The judge acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of the doubt to him and ordered the jail authorities to release him forthwith if he was not required in any other case.
According to the prosecution, on May 15, 2024, a police party out on patrol signalled the accused, on a motorcycle, to stop on Mauripur Road, Lyari. During a search, one 9mm pistol and a hand grenade was recovered from his possession. The accused failed to produce a licence of the weapon.
Defence counsel Hyder Farooq Jatoi contended that the accused was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He said the prosecution couldn't produce any evidence to establish its charges against his client, adding that there were grave contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
He therefore requested the judge to acquit the accused for lack of evidence.
Two separate cases were lodged under Section 23(i)A of the Sindh Arms Act and 4/ 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.