HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals No. 50 & 67
of 2015
Present:
Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr.
Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Date of Hearing
: 05.10.2017 .
Date of Judgment : 12.10.2017
.
Appellants : Mohammad Arsalan & Mussawar Alam through Mr. Mamnoon
K.Sherwani Advocate.
Respondent
: The State through
Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan DPG.
JUDGMENT
NAIMATULLAH
PHULPOTO, J.- Musawar Alam and
Mohammad Arslan appellants were tried by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court
No.II, Karachi in Special Case No.B-120/2012 (FIR No.371/2012 for offence under
Sections 387 PPC, 25-D of Telegraph Act read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Taimuria). After full-dressed trial,
appellants were found guilty and by judgment dated 12.03.2015, appellants were
convicted under Section 7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to 5
years R.I. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C was also extended to them.
2. Brief
facts of prosecution case as reflected from the evidence of the complainant
Mohammad Mustafa Khan are that on 25.06.2012, accused Arslan came at flat of
the complainant situated at Rahatabad, North Nazimabad and talked to the
complainant about the items of the salesmanship. On the same night complainant
received a call on his Cell No. 0302-2757578 from an unknown number. Caller
demanded Rs.50,000/- as bhatta from the complainant. 4/5 calls were made and
caller reduced demand of bhatta from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. Finding no
other way, complainant went to the Police Station where he also received another
call. Complainant, reported matter to SHO. After few days, the complainant was
called at Police Station Noor Jahan, where he saw a boy and identified him to
be Arslan, who came at his flat. Complainant lodged report bearing Crime No. 371/2012
for offence under Sections 387 PPC, 25-D of Telegraph Act read with Section 7
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 against accused.
3. After
usual investigation, challan was submitted against accused for offences under
Sections 387 PPC, 25-D of Telegraph Act read with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997.
4. Trial
Court framed charge against accused under the above referred sections. Accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.
5. At
trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses, who produced relevant documents,
to substantiate the charge. Thereafter, prosecution side was closed.
6. Statements
of accused were recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C at Ex.P/22 and P/23
respectively. Both the accused claimed false implication in these cases and
denied the prosecution allegations. Accused Mohammad Arslan examined himself on
oath in disproof of the prosecution allegations examined DWs (1) Rashid Rafi
and (2) Mohammad Ayub in his defence.
7. Trial
Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and examination of the
evidence available on record, by judgment dated 12.03.2015, convicted and
sentenced the appellants as stated above. Hence these appeals are filed. We intend
to dispose of these appeals by this single judgment.
8. The
facts of the case as well as evidence produced before the trial Court find an
elaborate mention in the Judgment dated 12.03.2015 passed by the learned trial
Court, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid unnecessary
repetition.
9. Mr.
Mamoon K. Sherwani learned counsel for the appellants has contended that prosecution
has failed to substantiate the charge against the accused. It is argued that
incident had occurred in between 25.06.2012 to 27.06.2012 and FIR was lodged on
18.07.2012 and delay in lodging FIR has not been explained by prosecution. Learned
counsel for the appellants further argued that prosecution has failed to produce
CDR of the calls made to the complainant before trial court. Learned counsel
further argued that appellants have been acquitted under Section 265-K Cr.P.C
by III-Additional Sessions Judge, Central Karachi in Crime No.340/2012 for
offence u/s 353/324/34 PPC as well as in FIR No.341/2012 for offence u/s 13(d) Arms
Ordinance by V-Judicial Magistrate, Central Karachi. Lastly, learned counsel
for the appellants argued that element of terrorism is missing in the present
case. Learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. In
support of his contentions, reliance is placed upon the cases of Sagheer
Ahmed vs. The State and others (2016 SCMR 1754)
& Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345).
10. Mr.
Mohammad Iqbal Awan, learned DPG argued that prosecution has proved its’ case
against appellants by cogent evidence. However, he admitted that SIM
0322-2325681 recovered from the possession of accused Arslan was not got
verified by the I.O. that in whose name it was issued. Learned DPG conceded to
the legal position that element of terrorism was not attracted in the present
case and frankly stated that conviction under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 was not warranted in law. Learned DPG opposed the appeals and prayed
for dismissal.
11. We have
carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the entire
evidence. We have come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to
establish its’ case against the appellants for the reasons that incident had occurred
in between 25.06.2012 to 27.06.2012 and FIR was lodged on 18.07.2012.
Prosecution has failed to explain such delay in lodging of FIR. Prosecution has
failed to produce CDR of the calls made to the complainant before the trial
court. Complainant in his examination in chief has deposed that accused Arslan
came to his flat, wherein in his cross-examination he deposed that both accused
present in Court had come to his flat. Such improvement made by the complainant
in his cross-examination has not in fact improved the case of prosecution,
rather it has created doubt, its’ benefit must go to the appellants. It is
admitted fact that SIM was not sealed at the spot, this piece of evidence would
not improve the case of prosecution. There is no evidence that by the acts of
accused, terror was created in the area. Therefore, the element of terrorism is
missing in the present case. As such, conviction under Section 7(h) of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is not sustainable under the law. Defence plea was
also not deeply considered by the Trial Court. In this case, there are several
circumstances, which have created doubt in the prosecution case. Moreover, the
crucial issue involved in this case is the issue of jurisdiction of
Anti-Terrorism Court to try the case. In the case of Sagheer
Ahmed vs. The State and others (2016 SCMR 1754), it has been held by
the Honourable Supreme Court that in the cases in which element of terrorism is
missing, Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try such case. Relevant
portion is reproduced as under:
“2. We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
record.
3. High
Court in the impugned judgment has observed as follows:
"10. The averments of FIR are silent regarding
the financial status and source of income of the complainant against which
accused have been demanding Bhatta. Complainant has also not disclosed the
specific dates, times and places of demanding Bhatta by accused persons nor any
such evidence was produced before the Investigating Officer to prima facie
establish such allegations. In absence of any tangible material, mere
allegations of demanding Bhatta do not attract section 6(2)(k) of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in the present case nor said section was mentioned in
the FIR and Challan. Perusal of Challan reflects that Investigating Officer had
made a request to the Anti-Terrorism Court for return of FIR and other
documents so that Challan may be submitted before the ordinary Court of law as
no case under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was made out, but his
request was declined by the Anti-Terrorism Court vide order dated 09.06.2014,
and cognizance was taken by the Court.
11. Cumulative effect of the averments of FIR,
surrounding circumstances and other material available on record have
replicated that offence having been committed on account of previous old enmity
with a definite motive. The alleged offence occurred at Faiz Wah bridge, which is
not situated in any populated area, consequently, the allegations of aerial
firing have not appeared to us to be a case of terrorism as the motive for the
alleged offence was nothing but personal enmity and private vendetta. The
intention of the accused party did not depict or manifest any act of terrorism
as contemplated by the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
Consequently, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to
produce any material before the Investigating Officer that at the time of
occurrence sense of fear, panic, terror and insecurity spread in the area,
nevertheless it was a simple case of murder due to previous enmity, thus,
alleged offence does not fall within purview of any of the provisions of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. While probing the question of applicability of
provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in any crime, it is incumbent that
there should be a sense of insecurity, fear and panic amongst the public at
large to invoke the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. Indeed, in each
murder case there is loss of life which is also heinous crime against the
society but trial of each murder case cannot be adjudicated by the
Anti-Terrorism Court, except existence of peculiar circumstances as
contemplated under sections 6, 7, 8 of Anti-Terrorism. Act, 1997."
4. We note that observation made by the
High Court is based upon the record of the case and no misreading in this
respect was pointed out before us. The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that in evidence petitioner has brought on record sufficient
material to substantiate the fact of demand of Bhatta in FIR that complainant
party was doing business of brick kiln. There is no allegation in the FIR that
complainant party was engaged in brick kiln business. Be that as it may, we
find that High Court has rightly dealt with the matter and prima facie there is
nothing on record to deviate from the same. The petition is, therefore
dismissed and leave refused.”
12. It is pointed out by learned counsel for
the parties that appellants have been acquitted today more or less in the
similar circumstances in Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals No. 49 and 138
of 2015. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
“We have carefully heard the learned
counsel for the parties and scanned the entire evidence. We have come to the
conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish its’ case against the
appellants for the reasons that incident had occurred on 21.05.2012 and matter
was reported to the police on 25.07.2012. There was inordinate delay in lodging
of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. It has also
come on record that complainant had sent bhatta money through Easy Paisa, such
act of accused did not attract the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court as
element of terrorism is missing in this case. As such, conviction under Section
7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is not sustainable under the law.
Investigation was also not carried out in accordance with law for the reasons
that I.O did not bother to interrogate the person in whose name the CNIC was
issued, on which complainant had sent bhatta money through easy paisa. CDR was
also not produced before the trial Court to prove the prosecution case.
Evidence of complainant is silent regarding his financial status and source of
income against which accused had been demanding bhatta. Defence plea was also
not considered by the Trial Court. In this case, there are several
circumstances, which have created doubt in the prosecution case.”
13. In this case, there are number of
infirmities/lacunas, as highlighted above, same have created serious doubt in
the prosecution case. It is settled principle of law for extending benefit of
doubt, it is not necessary that there should be multiple circumstances creating
doubt If a single circumstance, which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent
mind about the guilt of accused, then he will be entitled to such benefit not
as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right, as has been held
in the case of Tariq Pervez vs. The
State (1995 SCMR 1345), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as
under:-
“The concept of benefit of doubt to an accused persons
is deep-rooted in our country for giving him benefit of doubt, it is not
necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is
a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt
of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as matter
of grace and concession but as a matter of right.”
14. In the view of above, we have come to the
conclusion that learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try
case of extortion of money. Moreover, prosecution has failed to prove the
aforesaid cases against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. The lacunas
pointed out in the prosecution evidence have not been taken into consideration
by trial Court while convicting the appellants rendered the impugned judgment
nullity in law. Therefore, we extend benefit of doubt to the appellants and
allow Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 50 & 67 of 2015.
Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court vide
judgment dated 12.03.2015 are set aside. Appellants Musawar Alam and Mohammad Arslan
are acquitted of the charges. Appellant Mohammad Arslan is present on bail, his
bail bond stands cancelled and surety discharged. Appellant Musawar Alam is in
custody. He shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other
case.
JUDGE
JUDGE