KARACHI, May 29: The prosecution in the PIDC bomb blast case against two alleged members of the Balochistan Liberation Army sought on Tuesday capital punishment for the accused as an anti-terrorism court reserved its judgment.

Judge Haq Nawaz Baloch of the ATC-5, who conducted the trial inside the Central Prison, fixed Thursday for the pronouncement of the verdict after he heard final arguments from Special Public Prosecutor Mazhar Qayyum and defence counsel M. R. Syed.

Aziz Khan and Mangla Khan, arrested on Nov 15, 2005 in Gulshan-i-Iqbal, have been prosecuted, while a grandson of the late Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, Brahamdakh, and a nephew of the slain Baloch leader, Abdul Majeed Bugti, were declared absconders in the case.

Four security guards were killed and 21 others wounded when a powerful car bomb exploded in front of the PIDC House on Nov 15, 2005. The bomb went off at 8:40am causing extensive damage to a fast-food outlet, bank branches on the ground floor and offices on upper floors.

At least 25 vehicles were destroyed and eight others were damaged. Windowpanes of the adjoining buildings, including a five-star hotel and Dawood Centre, were shattered.

The KFC outlet and the adjacent Muslim Commercial Bank branch were destroyed while branches of three other banks were damaged. Most of the floors of the PIDC House are occupied by the Pakistan Petroleum Limited.

Two security guards, Sabz Ali and Iftikhar Ahmad, on duty at the MCB branch, were killed on the spot. Two other security guards, Jawed Iqbal and Noor Rehman, who were posted at the PIDC House and KFC, died in hospital.

The bomb contained improvised explosives and the blast caused a crater on the ground one-and-a-half feet deep and four-foot in diameters. The car in which the bomb was planted was stolen on Sept 28, 2005 in Khairpur.

The prosecution examined 35 prosecution witnesses, who also included two eyewitnesses.

The prosecutor prayed the court to award the maximum punishment to the accused as the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt.

He submitted that the two accused were seen by the two eyewitnesses, Zahir Shah, a taxi driver, and ASI Mohammad Ashraf, when they came to the spot to park the explosive-laden vehicle.

Mazhar Qayyum said both the eye-witnesses identified the two accused before the court of a judicial magistrate during an identification parade and as well as in the trial court.

The prosecutor submitted that the two accused had also recorded their confessional statements voluntarily before the judicial magistrate.

He contended that the prosecution had brought enough evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

Defence Counsel M. R. Syed, however, pleaded to the court to acquit both the accused as the case of prosecution was full of contradictions.

He submitted that both the eye-witnesses were “chance witnesses” as such their evidence could not be relied upon in the eyes of law. He argued that the names of the eye-witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR registered at around 10:30am, while the incident, as per the case of the prosecution, took place at around 8:45am.

He contended that there were several contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

The defence counsel contended that legal formalities were not fulfilled by the judicial magistrate while conducting the identification parade of the accused.

He also called in question the veracity of the judicial confessional statements of the accused and submitted that they were recorded after 20 days of their arrest.He said there were several doubts in the case of the prosecution and he contended that the benefit of the doubt must go in favour of the defendants.

The defence counsel further argued that the prosecution could not bring even a shred of evidence to establish the affiliation of the defendants with the BLA.