THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 96 of 2021

Before:

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah

Appellant: Muhammad Uzair through Mr. Nehal Khan Lashari and Mr. Zeeshan Ali Memon advocates

Respondent: The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 24.09.2021

Date of announcement: 27.09.2021

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- The appellant allegedly being member of proscribed organization for collecting donation to be used for terrorist activities was convicted and sentenced to various terms spreading over ten years with fine by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.XII, Karachi, vide his judgment dated 26.07.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police otherwise he has got no concern with the proscribed organization or collecting the donation to be used for terrorist activities. By contending so, he sought acquittal of the appellant. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the case of Shahmeer vs. The State and others (2020 P.Cr.L.J 1215).

3. Learned Addl. P.G for the state by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant Appeal.

4. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

5. No independent witness has been associated to witness the arrest of the appellant though the complainant ASI Imdad Hussain was having advance information for the incident. The FIR does not contain the time of incident. As per PW mashir HC Mir Muhammad no receipts for donation was issued by the appellant in his presence. The receipt allegedly issued by the appellant as per I.O Inspector Syed Muhammad Sarfaraz have not been sent to handwriting expert to ascertain whether those were actually issued by the appellant. Nothing has been brought on record which may suggest that the appellant is a member of proscribed organization. In these circumstances, it could be concluded safely that the prosecution has not been able to prove the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence beyond shadow of doubt.

6. In case of Muhammad Mansha vs The State (2018 SCMR 772), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“4….Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted".

7. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by way of impugned judgment are set aside, consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the offences for which he has been charged, tried and convicted by the learned trial Court, he shall be released forthwith in present case, if he is not required to be detained in any custody case.

8. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

JUDGE

.