IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2019 
(Against the judgment dated 10.03.2015 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2009) 
 
 
Nadeem Hussain 
 
 
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
The State  
           …Respondent 
 
For the appellant: 
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, ASC  
 
For the State: 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Jaffar, 
Deputy 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
11.07.2019 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ.: Nadeem Hussain appellant 
and some others were allegedly involved in two suicide bombings 
at the gate of and inside the premises of the Pakistan Naval War 
College, Mall Road, Lahore on 04.03.2008 at 12.50 P.M. in which 
incident three persons had died and 18 others, including some 
officers and officials, were injured. In respect of the said incident 
FIR No. 149 was registered at Police Station Race Course, Lahore 
on the same day and after a regular trial the appellant was 
convicted by the trial court on three counts of an offence under 
section 302(b), PPC read with section 109, PPC and was sentenced 
to imprisonment for life and to pay compensation on each of such 
counts besides having been convicted and sentenced for offences 
under section 7(a) read with section 21-I of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 
1997, section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with 
section 109, PPC, section 324, PPC read with section 109, PPC, 
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2019 
 
2
section 427, PPC read with section 109, PPC and section 353, PPC 
read with section 109, PPC. The appellant challenged his 
convictions and sentences before the High Court through an 
appeal which was dismissed and all his convictions and sentences 
recorded by the trial court were upheld and maintained. Hence, 
the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 08.02.2019.  
 
2. 
Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to 
reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned 
counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.  
 
3. 
It is admitted at all hands that the appellant had not been 
nominated in the FIR in any capacity whatsoever and it was at 
some subsequent stage that he was implicated in this case as an 
accomplice of his co-accused. During the trial the prosecution had 
produced some pieces of circumstantial evidence only as there was 
no direct evidence available against the appellant. The first piece of 
evidence produced by the prosecution vis-à-vis the present 
appellant was the statement made by Muhammad Iqbal Younis 
(PW43) who had claimed that the appellant and some others were 
introduced to him by Abdul Hameed alias Watto co-accused during 
an assemblage at Raiwand but admittedly no specific utterance on 
that occasion was attributed to the appellant by the said witness. 
The second piece of evidence produced against the appellant was 
again through the statement made by the above mentioned 
Muhammad Iqbal Younis (PW43) who had claimed that on the date 
of the present occurrence the said witness had visited a computer 
shop of the appellant whereat he had seen Abdul Hameed alias 
Watto and Imran Mota co-accused and two unknown persons who 
had given some jackets to the said two unknown persons and then 
Abdul Hameed alias Watto and Imran Mota co-accused had taken 
those two unknown persons with them for the purpose of causing 
blasts at the Pakistan Naval War College, Lahore. We have gone 
through the statement made by Muhammad Iqbal Younis (PW43) 
before the trial court and have found that he had never stated that 
at the time of his seeing the co-accused at the computer shop the 
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2019 
 
3
appellant was also present on that occasion or that he was 
involved in providing jackets to the unknown culprits and taking 
them to the scene of the crime. We have also observed that it had 
nowhere been established by the prosecution that the shop in 
issue actually belonged to the appellant or was in his possession in 
any other capacity. The third piece of evidence produced by the 
prosecution against the appellant was that he was arrested from a 
shop and from that shop some explosive substance, etc. had been 
recovered. In that respect we have found that no Memorandum of 
Recovery vis-à-vis recovery of the explosive substance, etc. had 
been brought on the record of the case and it had never been 
proved by the prosecution that the appellant had any connection 
with the said shop. The next piece of evidence produced by the 
prosecution against the appellant was that the Registration Book 
relevant to one of the motorcycles used in the main incident was 
recovered from the appellant’s possession but after going through 
the record of this case from cover to cover we have found that no 
Memorandum of Recovery regarding Registration Book having been 
recovered from the appellant was brought on the record of the case 
throughout the trial. The last piece of evidence relied upon by the 
prosecution against the appellant was the statement of Babar 
Bakht, S.P. (PW37) who had claimed that on 25.04.2008 the 
appellant, while in custody, had made a confession which was 
recorded under section 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. We 
have straightway noticed that the said confessional statement 
attributed to the appellant was not signed or thumb-marked by the 
appellant. A confession before the police is inadmissible in 
evidence in normal cases but in cases of terrorism section 21-H of 
the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 has made such a confession before 
the police conditionally admissible. The condition placed by the 
said section upon admissibility of such a confession before the 
police is that there must be some other evidence, including 
circumstantial evidence, which must reasonably connect the 
accused person with the alleged offence before a confession made 
by the accused person before the police is accepted by a court 
worthy of any consideration. Such conditional admissibility of a 
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2019 
 
4
confession before the police is contingent upon availability of some 
other evidence connecting the accused person with the alleged 
offence but in the present case, as we have already discussed 
above, all the other pieces of evidence relied upon by the 
prosecution against the appellant had utterly failed to connect the 
appellant with the alleged offences. In this view of the matter the 
case in hand was not a fit case wherein the trial court could even 
consider the confession before the police attributed to the 
appellant. As if this were not enough, the record of the case shows 
that Muhammad Hanif, Inspector (PW41), one of the investigating 
officers, had stated before the trial court in black and white that 
during the investigation no connection between the appellant and 
his co-accused had been established and this statement of the said 
investigating officer had been fortified by the statement made by 
another investigating officer namely Muhammad Yaqoob Awan, 
Inspector (PW39) who had conceded before the trial court that 
during the investigation nothing had been recovered from the 
appellant’s possession.  
 
4. 
For what has been discussed above a conclusion is 
inescapable and unavoidable that the prosecution had failed to 
prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This 
appeal is, therefore, allowed, the convictions and sentences of the 
appellant recorded and upheld by the courts below are set aside 
and he is acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt 
to him. He shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required 
to be detained in connection with any other case.  
     
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
11.07.2019 
Approved for reporting. 
  
Arif