Key Points: - The court discusses that Section 3(a) requires proving unlawful and malicious causing of an explosion likely to endanger life or property, and that the prosecution must establish this; lack of direct evidence and expert opinion undermines such proof, leading to setting aside Section 3(a) conviction. (!) (!) (!) - The court affirms conviction under Section 5(a) based on possession of explosive substances under suspicious circumstances, supported by forensic evidence (Ex-A, Ex-E) and the accused’s failure to provide a plausible explanation, establishing the elements of Section 5(a). (!) (!) (!) - The burden of proof for Section 5(a) is on the prosecution to prove explosive substance, possession or control, and circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion of illegality; once discharged, the burden shifts to the accused to show lawful object. (!) (!) (!)

What is the standard of proof required to convict under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act?

What is the standard of proof and evidentiary burden for conviction under Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substances Act?

What evidence or (lack of) expert testimony is needed to establish involvement of explosives in an explosion under the Explosive Substances Act?