HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No.88 of 2018

Present: Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha

Appellant : Abdul Rehman son of Ghulam Hazrat through Mr. Abdul Nasir, Advocate

Respondent : The State through Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of Hearing : 15.04.2019

Date of Announcement : 22.04.2019

J U D G M E N T

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Appellant Abdul Rehman son of Ghulam Hazrat was tried by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Karachi (Special Cases No.A-57 of 2014). On the conclusion of trial, vide judgment dated 03.02.2015, appellant was convicted under section 7(ff) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to 14 years R.I. Benefit of Section 382(b) Cr.P.C was also extended to the accused.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.02.2014, ASI Imdad Ali of P.S. Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Karachi left police station along with subordinate staff on 21.02.2014 for patrolling duty, when the police party reached at Block 9/10, Pehlwan Goth at 0450 hours, found one suspected car, black coloured. Police got it stopped, one suspected person on inquiry disclosed his name Abdul Rehman son of Ghulam Hazrat. ASI conducted his personal search in presence of his subordinate staff and recovered one hand grenade from his pocket, three mobile phones and cash Rs.6430/-. Appellant disclosed that he is Afghan national. Appellant failed to produce the registration book of the vehicle No.ACF-721, mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared in presence of mashirs, it was produced in evidence at Ex.5/B. Accused and case property were brought to the police station where FIR was lodged against the accused vide Crime No.103/2014 under section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Investigation was handed over to SIO/Inspector Jameel Akhtar Bangash on 22.02.2014, who inspected the place of wardat in presence of mashirs, recorded 161, Cr.PC statement of PWs. Rifle grenade was examined by bomb disposal unit. After usual investigation, challan was submitted against the accused under the above referred sections.

3. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. At trial, prosecution examined PW-1 Imdad Ali Bullo at Ex.5, PW-2 HC Ghulam Shabbir at Ex.6, PW-3 Inspector Jameel Akhtar Bangash at Ex.7 and PW-4 Inspector Sohail Ahmed Khan at Ex.8. Thereafter, prosecution side was closed at Ex.9.

5. Statement of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded at Ex.10. Accused claimed false implication in this case and raised plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of ASI Imdad Ali. In a question what else he has to say, accused replied that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he had married six months back. Statement of the appellant on oath was also recorded at Ex.11.

6. Trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessment of evidence, by judgment dated 03.02.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

7. Mr. Abdul Nasir, advocate for appellant, at the very outset does not press the appeal on merits and prayed for taking the lenient view in sentence on the ground that six months prior to the arrest of the appellant, he had married, he is a your person aged about 30 years, he is sole supporter of his old parents and his wife. Learned counsel further argued that appellant is not previous convict, he has learnt lesson and wants to pass life as a peaceful citizen of the country.

8. Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, learned DPG argued that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, however, recorded no objection in case sentence is reduced to some reasonable extent. It is admitted by learned DPG that accused is not previous convict as per record.

9. We have examined the evidence carefully. ASI Imdad Ali found accused driving the car without registration and in suspicious manner conducted his personal search and secured one hand grenade from his possession. HC Ghulam Shabbir, mashir of arrest and recovery has fully supported the case of prosecution. Report of bomb disposal unit, who examined the hand grenade, is positive. All the PWs were cross-examined at length, nothing favourable to accused came on record. No enmity whatsoever has been brought on record against the police officials. We have no reason to disbelieve such confidence inspiring evidence.

10. Since appeal is not pressed on merit, the same is dismissed as not pressed and the conviction is maintained. So far as the sentence is concerned, appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.PC has raised plea that he married six months prior to his arrest. Learned advocate for appellant has argued appellant is sole supporter of old parents and young wife, he is first offender and not a previous convict. Appellant places himself at the mercy of this Court. Learned D.P.G. admits that the appellant is not a previous convict. It is also argued before us that appellant wants to start new life as a good citizen. In our view, severe sentence would cause frustration to appellant and he would become desperate and hardened criminal. We provide him an opportunity to support his family and reform himself and thus reduce sentence awarded to him under section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 from 14 years R.I. to 7 years R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.PC is also extended to the appellant.

11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS