ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus THE STATE

MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.--- Abdul Ghaffar appellant (28 years) has been convicted under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 by Punjab Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist) Activities No.V, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad vide judgment, dated 17-2-1991 and sentenced to four years' R.I. with benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. He has appealed.

2. Saadullah Khan, Inspector (P.W.3) posted as S.H.O. Police Station Gojra while on patrol duty on 7-7-1990 spotted the appellant in the area of Chak No.164/GB at about 5-00 p.m. standing on a Saim Nala Bridge and on seeing the police party tried to slip away. He was hauld up on suspicion and from his personal search, from a shopper (P.4) three self-made iron pipe bombs (P.1, P.2 and P.3) wrapped in a towel (P.5) were recovered vide memo. (Exh.P.D.) Case was got registered on the said facts.

3. The apprehension of the appellant and the recovery of the bombs is stated to by Nasrullah Khan, Inspector and Manzoor Hussain Shah, S.I. (P.Ws.3 and 4). The defence suggested to them and pleaded in his statement at the close of the trial by the appellant was that the father-in-law of the appellant, a resident of Chak No.164/GB had got him falsely involved in the case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no public person had been associated to witness the recovery and that the possibility of false involvement could not be ruled out. After having been taken through the record we are not impressed with the argument. The police party were on patrol and when they reached the bridge found the appellant who tried to slip away, was caught hold of on suspicion and his personal search yielded the bombs. Unless it can be shown that the police had played in the hands of the father-in-law of the appellant, their statements which are forthright cannot be brushed aside. It has been suggested to the two witnesses and is also in the statement of the appellant that he had divorced his wife about one year before the present occurrence. His claim is that he had come for condolence of the death of a brother of his ex-wife. It is not believable that the appellant having divorced his wife about one year before the present occurrence, would have come down to his ex-father-m-law for condolence of his ex-brother-in-law, even if he was otherwise related to the family. The defence plea has no force.

5. The upshot is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

N.H.Q./A-575/L Appeal dismissed.