IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
 
JAIL PETITION NO. 169 OF 2021 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
16.03.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 76554/2017) 
 
Nazir Ahmed  
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
The State 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Sikandar Zulqarnain Saleem, ASC 
(Via video link from Lahore) 
 
 
For the State: 
Mirza Abid Majeed, DPG 
Mr. Haseeb Ashraf, D.O. CTD 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
01.06.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Petitioner was tried by the 
learned Special Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Sargodha pursuant to a case 
registered vide FIR No. 43 dated 29.06.2016 under Sections 4/5 of 
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 7 of the Anti Terrorism 
Act, 1997 at Police Station CTD, Faisalabad as explosive material weighing 
1150 grams along with four detonators and two safety fuses were 
recovered from his possession. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment 
dated 14.09.2017 convicted the petitioner as under:- 
 
i) 
Under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 
To undergo fourteen years RI and his whole property was 
forfeited to the government.   
 
 
ii) 
Under Section 7(ff) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 
 
 
To undergo fourteen years RI with forfeiture of his property.  
JAIL PETITION NO. 169 OF 2021 
-: 2 :-
2. 
 
In appeal the learned High Court maintained the conviction 
and sentences recorded by the learned Trial Court. The prosecution story 
as given in the judgment of the learned High Court reads as under:- 
“2. 
Brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2016 the Complainant, 
Noor Muhammad/SI (PW-1), was patrolling with other police officials on 
Watta Khel Chowk, Mianwali, when he received a source information that 
Nazir Ahmad (the “Appellant”) was waiting for someone at Hassan Chowk 
with a red and white cloth bag containing explosives and that he could be 
apprehended if an immediate action was taken. On this tip-off, the 
Complainant and his contingent reached that place and nabbed the 
Appellant on the pointing out of the informer. He checked his bag and 
found explosive substance weighing 1150 grams, one match box, four 
detonators and two safety fuses. On his personal search he recovered 
Rs.570/- from his pocket. The Complainant drew 20 grams from the 
recovered explosive substance and prepared a sampled parcel for chemical 
analysis. Then he secured the entire case property vide Recovery Memo 
Exh. PA, drafted the complaint Ex.PC and sent it to the Police Station CTD, 
Faisalabad, through Hammad Qadeer 791/CP on the basis of which 
Muhammad Shahid Anwar 720/CP (PW-3) registered FIR No.43/2016 Exh. 
PC/1 at 03:10 p.m.” 
3. 
 
After completion of the investigation, report under Section 
173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Trial Court. The prosecution in order 
to prove its case produced eight witnesses. In his statement recorded 
under Section 342 Cr.P.C, the petitioner pleaded his innocence and refuted 
all the allegations leveled against him. He did not make statement on oath 
as provided under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C in disproof of the allegations 
leveled against him. However, he produced some defence witnesses and 
documentary proof.  
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 
contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and 
the Police has planted the explosive material upon him. Contends that 
there are glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements in the 
statements of the prosecution witnesses, which have escaped the notice 
of the learned courts below. Contends that the learned courts below did 
not take into consideration the defence plea of the petitioner that he was 
kidnapped by the law enforcing agencies and was falsely framed in the 
picture with ulterior motives. Contends that none from the public was 
associated in the case and only official witnesses deposed against the 
JAIL PETITION NO. 169 OF 2021 
-: 3 :-
petitioner. Lastly contends that the reasons given by the learned High 
Court to sustain conviction of the petitioner are speculative and artificial in 
nature, therefore, the impugned judgment may be set at naught. 
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Law Officer has supported the 
impugned judgment. He contended that the petitioner was caught red 
handed while in possession of a huge quantity of explosive material and 
the Police officials had no enmity to falsely involve him in the present case. 
Contends that the prosecution has proved its case against the petitioner 
beyond shadow of doubt and mere technicalities cannot absolve the 
petitioner of his criminal liability. 
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the evidence available on the record with their 
able assistance.  
7. 
 
It is the prosecution case that the petitioner was caught red 
handed while he was carrying a cloth bag, which contained explosive 
substance weighing 1150 grams wrapped in a polythene bag, four 
detonators wrapped in blue polythene, a match box and two safety fuses. 
Twenty grams explosive material was separated and was sent to Punjab 
Forensic Science Agency for chemical analysis. To bring home the guilt of 
the petitioner, the prosecution mainly relied upon the statements of Noor 
Muhammad, SI/complainant (PW-1), Ahmed Nawaz, SI (PW-2) and Khaliq 
Dad Khan, Bomb Disposal Commander (PW-5). Noor Muhammad (PW-1) 
and Ahmed Nawaz (PW-2) appeared to prove the factum of recovery 
whereas Khalid Dad Khan (PW-5) gave its report to the effect that the 
detonators and safety fuses were alive. These witnesses have narrated the 
prosecution story in a natural manner and remained consistent 
throughout and their testimony could not be shattered. These prosecution 
witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but 
nothing favourable to the petitioner or adverse to the prosecution could 
be produced on record. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the 
testimonies of these PWs are reliable, straightforward and confidence 
inspiring. The said witnesses had no enmity with the petitioner to falsely 
JAIL PETITION NO. 169 OF 2021 
-: 4 :-
implicate him in the present case. This Court in a number of cases has held 
that testimony of official witnesses is as good as any other private witness 
unless it is proved that they have animus against the accused. However, 
no such thing could be brought on record by the petitioner in this case. 
This Court has time and again held that reluctance of general public to 
become witness in such like cases has become judicially recognized fact 
and there is no way out to consider statements of official witnesses, as no 
legal bar or restriction has been imposed in this regard. Police/official 
witnesses are as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their 
testimonies remain un-shattered during cross-examination. The parcel 
containing sample of recovered explosive substance was sent to the office 
of Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory and according to the report of the 
Agency the sample contained explosive material. During the course of 
proceedings, the learned counsel contended that there are material 
discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses 
but on our specific query he could not point out any major contradiction, 
which could shatter the case of the prosecution. It is a well settled 
proposition of law that as long as the material aspects of the evidence 
have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the 
evidence. The test is whether the evidence of a witness inspires 
confidence. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, 
the defence can take advantage of the same. While appreciating the 
evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence read as 
a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial 
matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case 
ought not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety. Such 
minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the 
prosecution case should be ignored. The petitioner had taken a defence 
plea that he was arrested by CTD due to his relation with one Mukhtar, 
who was his cousin and belonged to TTB and was falsely framed in the 
picture with ulterior motives. It is worth mentioning that during the course 
of proceedings before the Trial Court, the petitioner did not opt to appear 
on oath in terms of Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. However, he produced defence 
JAIL PETITION NO. 169 OF 2021 
-: 5 :-
witnesses. When the person who is himself seized with first hand 
information does not appear on oath and only produces witnesses, this 
move lowers the sanctity of defence version simply for the reason that the 
accused was a best witness to depose entire detail as to when and who 
abducted him, what was the reason behind this, where he was kept, who 
brought him to the place of occurrence, why he was falsely involved in the 
case etc. When the petitioner took a specific plea and he was a best 
witness for the same then his non-appearance is to be taken as 
withholding of the best evidence. The learned High Court in paragraph 15 
of the impugned judgment has dealt with this issue and has rightly held as 
under:- 
“To prove this plea, he examined DW-1 to DW-4 and produced the 
documents mentioned above. So far as the DWs are concerned, their 
evidence does not inspire confidence because they did not explain 
why they neither approached senior officers in police hierarchy nor a 
court of law to get the appellant released. Importantly, the appellant 
did not produce his brother Zahoor Ahmed, who was a material 
witness as DW-1 Zameer Haider stated that he had informed him 
about his arrest by the CIA staff. In our opinion, the documents are 
also of little help to the appellant. The application under Section 22-A 
Cr.P.C. did not specifically state that the CTD officials were involved in 
his alleged arrest.” 
 
 
 
8. 
 
According to Article 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 
1984, the burden to prove any particular fact lies on the person who 
wishes the court to believe its existence. There is no denial to this fact that 
the prosecution has to discharge the burden of proving the case beyond 
reasonable doubt. However, once the prosecution becomes successful in 
discharging the said burden, it is incumbent on the accused who had taken 
a specific defence plea to prove the same with certainty but we are of the 
view that the petitioner has failed to prove the same. The learned High 
Court has correctly appreciated the material aspects of the case and the 
conclusions drawn are in line with the guidelines enunciated by this Court 
on the subject. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to 
point out any legal or factual error in the impugned judgment, which could 
be made basis to take a different view from that of the learned High Court.   
JAIL PETITION NO. 169 OF 2021 
-: 6 :-
 
9. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit 
in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. The 
above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date. 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
1st of June, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram