IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Spl ATA Appeal No.11 of 2013

Spl ATA Appeal No.13 of 2013

Present:

Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Appellant : Muhammad Zeeshan alias Rasheed S/o Muhammad Rafiq through Mr. Muhammad Hanif Qureshi, Advocate.

Appellant : Muhammad Siddique alias Shahid Baloch alias Saddam S/o Muhammad Saleem through Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Advocate.

Respondent : The State through Mr. Khadim Hussain Khuharo, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh.

Date of hearing : 21.03.2014

Date of announcement: 10.04.2014

J U D G M E N T

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.- Appellants Muhammad Zeeshan alias Rasheed and Muhammad Siddiq alias Shahid Baloch alias Saddam were tried for offences under Sections 386, 387, 34 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III/Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi South, who vide Judgment dated 17.05.2013 found the Appellants/accused guilty for the offences charged with and convicted them under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with Sections 386, 387, 34 PPC for five years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each. In case of default, in payment of the fine, appellants were directed to suffer S.I. for 6 months more. Accused were extended benefit under section 382(b) Cr.PC. We intend to decide the aforesaid appeals by this Judgment.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Appeals are that on 05.11.2012 complainant Abdul Sattar lodged F.I.R. at Police Station Napier, Karachi South, alleging therein that on 16.08.2012 at 03:00 p.m. he received a call on his phone No.32736230 from mobile No0347-2697062. The caller disclosed his name as Zeeshan alias Rasheed and claimed to belong the Lyari Gang War. Complainant was asked to make arrangement of Bhatta of Rs.300,000/-. It is alleged that complainant replied that he would talk to him after Eid. It is alleged that on 24.08.2012 caller established contact and agreed to received Bhatta Rs.100,000/- instead of Rs.300,000/-. Thereafter, it is mentioned that accused Zeeshan alias Rasheed asked the complainant to reach at Ramzan Kanta at 03:50 p.m. for payment. Entire episode was narrated by the complainant to his business community in the market, namely, Zahid Hussain and Muhammad Shareef. These two PWs, accompanied the complainant to the specified place, namely, Ramzan Kanta where it is alleged that one person having a fair complexion aged about 19/20 years appeared and introduced himself to the complainant as Zeeshan alias Rasheed. He was armed with pistol. Complainant due to fear handed over cash Rs.100,000/- to him. He was accompanied by two accused persons, who were standing at some distance with motorcycle. Thereafter all three accused drove away. Complainant was informed names of accused persons by the PWs. The name of one accused was told as Muhammad Siddiq alias Shahid Baloch and the name of another was told as Aftab. They reside in Ghanchi Mohallah. Complainant further stated that after one month again accused Zeeshan had called the complainant from mobile No.0345-2106500 and demanded Bhatta. After negotiation complainant paid him Rs.7000/- at Ramzan Kanta. On 13.10.2012 complainant again received a mobile call on 0300-9217244 from Cell No.0311-2620936, caller claimed that he belong to Lyari Gang War and demanded Rs.1,000,000/-, in case of nonpayment of Bhatta, threat to the life of complainant and his children was issued. Thereafter, complainant lodged F.I.R. It was recorded on 05.11.2012 at 19:00 hours vide Crime No.181/2012 under Sections 386, 387, 34 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

3. After registration of the F.I.R. 161 Cr.PC statement of PWs were recorded. Place of occurrence was inspected in presence of mashirs, such mashirnama was prepared. Inspector Muhammad Ashraf, the investigation officer, received information that accused persons wanted in this crime were under arrest in another case at SIU Saddar. Thereafter, inspector/IO proceeded there and arrested accused Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Zeeshan in F.I.R. No.181/2012, registered at P.S. Napier. Mashirnama of arrest was prepared in presence of the mashirs. During interrogation, appellants/accused disclosed the name of the absconding accused as Aftab. Identification parade of accused through eye witnesses of the incident i.e. complainant Abdul Sattar, Zahid Hussain and Muhammad Sharjeel was held before Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate and telephone data was collected. On the completion of investigation, challan was submitted against the accused under the above referred sections. Accused Aftab was shown as absconder and he was declared as proclaimed offender. Proceedings u/s 87-88 Cr.P.C were concluded against him.

4. Charge was framed against the appellants at Ex.20. To the charge accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial prosecution examined the following PWs:

1. PW Abdul Sattar at Exhibit-21

2. PW Syed Zahid Shah at Exhibit-22

3. PW Zahid Hussain Piprni at Exhibit-23

4. PW Muhammad Sharjeel Goplani Exhibit-24

5. PW Syed Raza Shareef Rizvi, Exhibit-25.

6. PW Muhammad Shafiullah at Exhibit-26

7. PW Mir Hassan, Exhibit-27

8. PW Muhammad Ashraf at Exhibit-28.

5. Thereafter, prosecution side was closed vide statement of D.D.P.P. dated 18.04.2013 at Ex. 29.

6. Appellants/accused have disputed the case of the prosecution in their statement recorded under section 342 Cr.PC and pleaded business jealousy with complainant party. However, they did not step into the witness box to give the evidence on oath in disproof of the prosecution allegations and also led no evidence in defence. However, certain documents/news cuttings were placed on record through the statement of defence counsel.

7. The case of the prosecution mainly hinges upon the ocular testimony, consisting of three eye witnesses, namely. (i) Abdul Sattar, (ii) Muhammad Sharjeel and (iii) Zahid Hussain, which is further corroborated by the identification parade and cell data record.

8. Complainant is the star witness of the prosecution and his testimony seems to have weighed considerably with the trial Court against the appellants, it has come on record through the complainant that on 16.08.2012 he had received a mobile call from accused Zeeshan, it was month of Ramzan. He replied him that after Eid, he would settle the amount. Complainant has stated that accused Zeeshan demanded Bhatta of Rs.300,000/- but deal was finalized in Rs.100,000/-. Thereafter, complainant along with his friends namely Mohammad Sharjeel and Zahid Hussain went to the Ramzan Kanta. P.Ws Sharjeel and Zahid Hussain stood by the side of Ramzan Kanta. Accused Zeeshan appeared, armed with pistol, introduced himself to the complainant as accused Zeeshan and demanded money and complainant paid him Rs.100,000/-. Two persons who were standing on the side with motorcycle, took the accused Zeeshan on the motorcycle and drove away. Thereafter, PWs Zahid Hussain and Sharjeel disclosed names of the two persons, who were standing by the side of the Naka as Mohammad Siddique and Aftab. P.Ws explained that those accused reside in Ghanchi Mohallah. After one month of payment of Bhatta, complainant again received a mobile call from accused Zeeshan, who told him that he was arranging marriage of his sister and demanded some amount in Hadiyah. Complainant went to the pointed place and paid Rs.7000/- to accused Zeeshan. Complainant has deposed that on 04.11.2012, his elder brother received call, the caller introduced himself as Arshad Papu and demanded Bhatta of Rs.10,00,000/-. Complainant went to the police station along with P.Ws and lodged the Report against the accused. He has produced FIR at Ex.21/A. Inspector Zahid Shah visited place of incident, it was shown to him by complainant in presence of the mashirs. Such mashirnama was prepared. On 11.12.2012 complainant received notice for his appearance before the Magistrate for identification parade, it was held on 19.11.2012 in which he identified only accused Zeeshan. In the cross-examination he has replied that he has not identified accused Siddique during identification parade held before the Magistrate. He has replied that accused Zeeshan had shown him pistol for receiving the Bhatta. Complainant has denied the suggestion that he has involved the accused in this case falsely at the instance of the police.

9. P.W-3 Zahid Hussain Piprani is eye witness. He has deposed that after Eid-ul-Fiter, he received a mobile call from the complainant who informed him that someone has demanded Bhatta of Rs.300,000/- from him. P.W Zahid Hussain advised the complainant to reach at P.W Sherjeel, who is General Secretary of Timber Market. Complainant narrated the entire episode to P.W Sherjeel and stated that deal has been finalized in Rs.100,000/- and place of payment has been fixed at Ramzan Kanta. Complainant was advised that he should accompany P.Ws Zahid and Sherjeel at the time of payment of Bhatta. On 24.08.2012 at 3:00 or 3:30 pm all the three persons reached at Ramzan Kanta where P.Ws Zahid and Sherjeel stood at some distance from Kanta and complainant proceeded ahead where one person appeared and received Bhatta of Rs.100,000/- from the complainant. PW Zahid Hussain had received notice during investigation for appearance before the Magistrate for the purpose of identification parade of the accused and he has deposed that it was held on 19.11.2012 and he identified accused Zeeshan and Siddique in the identification parade, he identified both the accused in Court also. In the cross-examination to learned Advocate for accused Siddique replied that he has identified accused Zeeshan and siddique at spot and identified before the Magistrate. He has denied the suggestion that there was dispute between the Saleem and Farhan. In cross examination to learned Advocate for accused Zeeshan witness has replied that he knows the accused persons since long as they reside in the same street. However, he has denied the suggestion that there is relationship in between him and father of accused Zeeshan. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of the police.

10. P.W-4 Mohammad Sherjeel is the eye witness of the incident. He has deposed that on 24.08.2012, he was present at his office at Old Haji Camp Karachi. Complainant Abdul Sattar along with P.W Zahid Piprani appeared in his office as he is the General Secretary of All Karachi Tajir Ittehad Timber Merchants. Complainant narrated him the entire episode regarding demand of Bhatta. P.W Mohammad Sherjeel accompanied complainant and P.W Zahid to the Ramzan Kanta where complainant had to make payment of Bhatta of Rs.100,000/-. He has stated that he went on motorcycle with P.W Zahid to the pointed place. Complainant was also with them but on his own motorcycle, when they reached at Ramzan Kanta, he along with PW Zahid Piprani stood in front of Ramzan Kanta and complainant Sattar went to the accused who was standing at Ramzan Kanta and gave Rs.100,000/- to accused Zeeshan. He further stated that motorcycle of accused Zeeshan was parked near to them. After receipt of Bhatta he proceeded to his motorcycle where two persons were standing by the side of the motorcycle thereafter, all the three accused drove away on the said motorcycle and complainant party returned back. After 2/3 months complainant again received a mobile call regarding Bhatta of Rs.10,00,000/- and complainant contacted him and narrated this fact. This P.W came to know that accused are residing in the same locality. Complainant lodged FIR against them on 05.11.2012. On 12.11.2012 he received notice regarding holding of identification parade before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate. He appeared in the Court of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, but he was on casual leave. However, 164 Cr.P.C statement was recorded on 19.11.2012. He has stated that accused Zeeshan and Siddique present in the Court are same, accused Aftab is absconder. In the cross-examination to the Advocate for accused Siddique P.W has replied that he had identified accused persons before the Magistrate at the time of his recording 164 Cr.P.C statement. In the cross-examination witness has replied that Magistrate held identification parade and he identified both accused. In the cross examination to learned Advocate for accused Zeeshan he has replied that place of incident was thickly populated area but there was no rush of public as it was Friday. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely against the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that entire story is managed one.

11. P.W-6 Mr. Mohammad Shafiullah Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South has deposed that I.O of P.S Napier submitted an application before him in Crime No.181 of 2012 for holding the identification parade and recording 164 Cr.P.C statements of Sherjeel and Zahid Hussain. Civil Judge and J.M on 19.11.2012 held identification parade of accused after observing the formalities through P.Ws Abdul Sattar and Zahid Hussain. Both PWs identified the accused persons. Judicial Magistrate has also stated that accused Zeeshan and Siddique present in the Court are same. In the cross examination to Advocate for Zeeshan Judicial Magistrate has replied that he had conducted identification parade of accused persons in accordance with law. He has replied that he has not mentioned the features of dummies. Judicial Magistrate has further replied that firstly he held identification parade of accused Zeeshan, thereafter of accused Siddique. He has denied the suggestion that he had not conducted identification parade according to law.

12. P.W-2 Syed Zahid Shah has stated that on 05.11.2012 he was posted at PS Napier in the investigation branch. He received copy of the FIR of Crime No. 181/2012 u/s 386/387/34 PPC for investigation. He inspected place of occurrence situated at Ramzan Kanta it was pointed out by complainant. He inspected it in presence of mashirs and prepared such mashirnama. Thereafter, investigation was transferred from him to Inspector Mohammad Ashraf.

13. P.W-8 Mohammad Ashraf I.O has stated that on 07.11.2012 he received papers of aforesaid crime for further investigation. During investigation he received information that accused wanted in this case were under arrest in some other case at SIU Saddar. Thereafter, I.O proceeded there and arrested accused Mohammad Siddique and Zeeshan in this case/crime. During interrogation both accused disclosed that absconding accused Aftab was also involved with them in this case. He had prepared mashirnama of arrest in presence of the mashirs and recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of the P.Ws and produced both accused before learned Judge ATC-III, for obtaining the remand. He has deposed that learned Judge ATC directed him to produce the accused before the Magistrate for identification parade through the eye witnesses and production of the witnesses before the Magistrate for recording their 164 Cr.P.C statements as well as medical examination of accused Zeeshan and Siddique. Both accused were produced before concerned Medical Officer Civil Hospital for medical examination. I.O. submitted an application on 10.11.2012 before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate concerned for conducting identification parade and recording of 164 Cr.P.C statements of the P.Ws. Investigation officer has further stated that on 10.11.2012 he moved an application to SSP, SIU, Saddar Karachi, for obtaining the record of telephone calls of accused Zeeshan. On 22.11.2012 Investigation Officer collected mobile phone record. On 19.11.2012 he produced accused before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate for holding identification parade of accused Zeeshan and Siddiq through the witnesses and for recording of 164 Cr.P.C statements of PWs Sharjeel and Zahid. After completion of investigation, he submitted challan against accused Zeeshan and Siddique. In the cross examination, Investigating Officer has replied that accused were already under arrest in another case at SIU Saddar, when he had started investigation in the case on 07.11.2012. He has replied that accused were under arrest in Crime No. 468/12 registered at PS Saeedabad for offences u/s 324/353/34 PPC. The Investigating Officer has denied about any news cutting report regarding this case. He has also denied about any news flashed on some TV Channel. He has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused in this case. He has also denied the suggestion that he had not conducted fair investigation in this case.

14. P.W-5 Syed Raza Shareef Rizvi deposed that on 07.04.2012 he received investigation of three cases bearing Crime Nos. 468, 469 and 470 of 2012. During interrogation accused Siddique and Zeeshan disclosed that they have received extortion money from one person near Ghas Mandi. Thereafter, he informed highups and Inspector Ashraf Awan, investigation officer of this case, came in his office, who arrested the accused in this case. In cross examination, he replied that in FIR No.468/2012 he received spy information that accused persons Aftab, Zeeshan and Siddique were sitting at Cheepa Graveyard Hub River Road, who were involved in extortion of money cases.

15. P.W-7 Meer Hassan has stated that on 05.11.2012 he was present at P.S Napier, where complainant Abdul Sattar came and narrated the entire episode to him. He lodged FIR against accused Zeeshan, Mohammad Siddique and Aftab. In cross examination he replied that after recording of FIR he handed over the same to the I.O.

16. It was the entire prosecution evidence, which has been brought on record by the prosecution.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused mainly contended that there was delay in lodging of the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. Prosecution evidence was unnatural and unbelievable. It is also contended that PWs had seen the accused at the police station before holding of identification parade. It is argued that there was dispute over the business between the accused and the complainant. It is submitted that defence plea has not been considered by the trial Court and there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Complainant Abdul Sattar did not implicate appellant Siddique. Lastly, it is argued that evidence of telephone data is not reliable and prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

18. Mr. Khadim Hussain Khunharo, learned DPG appearing for the State, argued that there are three eye witnesses of the incident . Accused were identified by the eye witnesses in the Identification parade as well as in the Court. Learned D.P.G. argued that complainant Abdul Sattar did not implicate appellant Siddique due to threat of life as accused persons belong to Lyari Gang. He has submitted that telephone data is a corroboratory piece of evidence against the appellants/accused to connect them in this case. Lastly, it is argued that no evidence in defence has been led to establish the dispute between the complainant and accused. He has fully supported the judgment of the trial Court and stated that prosecution has proved the case against the accused.

19. We have carefully scanned the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that Complainant has categorically stated that he paid bhatta to accused Zeeshan in presence of PWs Zahid Hussain and Sharjeel, accused Muhammad Siddique and Aftab were present with Zeeshan and were standing at some distance at the relevant time. Their names were disclosed to complainant by PWs Zahid Hussain and Sharjeel as these accused were residing in Ghanchi Mohalla. Complainant Abdul Sattar has not implicated appellant Siddique at trial. Eye witnesses, namely, Sharjeel and Zahid Hussain have also fully implicated the accused and stated that they had seen accused Zeeshan while receiving bhatta of Rs. 100,000/- at that time co-accused Siddiq and absconding accused were standing by the side of motor cycle. Thereafter, all accused drove away the motor cycle. In the identification parade eye witnesses of the incident rightly picked up both the accused. Magistrate has also categorically stated that both the accused were identified by eye witnesses before him in the identification parade. P.W Zahid Hussain identified both the appellants in the identification parade as well as in Court. P.W Sharjeel had also identified both the accused. Despite lengthy cross-examination, no material contradiction has been brought on record. Eye witnesses had no enmity whatsoever with the accused persons to falsely implicate them in this case. Delay in lodging of F.I.R. has also been fully explained by complainant. Therefore, delay in lodging of F.I.R. is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Defence plea has also not been substantiated by some documentary evidence. As such, defence theory regarding business dispute appears to be afterthought and it is not acceptable. The contention of learned advocate for the appellants that one eye witness, namely, Abdul Sattar (complainant) has not implicated the co-accused Muhammad Siddiq and prosecution case has become doubtful. We are not persuaded to agree with the learned defence counsel for the reason that it is a matter of public knowledge that in Sindh, on account of kidnapping for ransom, offence of extortion of money and other heinous offences people feel insecure, this aspect of ground reality cannot be overlooked. Moreover, it is settled law that even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt, it is fundamental duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff, where chaff can be separated from the grain it would be open to the Court to convict an accused. Trial Court rightly overlooked technicalities and believed prosecution evidence. So far delay in conducting identification parade is concerned, appellants were arrested in this case on 07.11.2012 and they were put to identification parade on 19.11.2012. Delay has been explained by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in holding the identification parade, he deposed that investigation officer moved application before him on 10.11.2012, he proceeded on casual leave, Link Magistrate refused to conduct identification parade. Even otherwise, no inherent defect in conducting identification parade has been brought on the record. We have no reasons to disbelieve such piece of evidence. Moreover, the recording and appreciation of evidence is primary function of the trial Court and the trial Court which had the benefit of observing the demeanours of the witnesses, after assessing and examining the corroborative evidence found witnesses worthy of reliance. It is settled law if the accused is identified in the Court and evidence inspires confidence it is sufficient to record the conviction. Reliance can be placed upon the case reported as Ghazanfar Ali alias Pappu and other Vs. the State (2012 SCMR 215). Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“Even otherwise the holding of identification parade is not mandatory and it is merely a corroborative piece of evidence. If the statement of a witness qua the identity of an accused even in Court inspires confidence, if he is consistent on all material particulars and there is nothing in evidence to suggest that he is deposing falsely, the absence of holding of identification parade would not be fatal to the prosecution.”

20. Telephone data/record has also been produced by the prosecution which clearly shows that accused Zeeshan contacted the complainant from his cell number. Such piece of evidence has not been rebutted in cross-examination. As such, there is huge evidence against both the appellants /accused to connect them in this case. Learned counsel for the appellants after prosecution side was closed, filed certain documents through his statement, including news cutting. We have observed that neither such documents were produced in the evidence in accordance with law nor opportunity was provided to the prosecutor for cross- examination. As such, no reliance can be placed upon such documents. Despite that, in the best interest of justice we have looked into such documents. There is nothing substantial in those documents to discredit such confidence inspiring prosecution evidence which has been brought on record. From the prosecution evidence it is proved that an offence of extortion of money which is called as “Bhatta” is proved. It is covered by sections 386 to 388 PPC and falls within the definition given in Section 6(1)(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wattan Party vs. Federation of Pakistan reported in PLD 2011 SC 997 at Page 1070 observed that such type of offence can only be controlled by applying such laws strictly. It is held as under:-

“64. It may be noted that as far as offence of extortion of money is concerned, which can also be considered as bhatta, it is covered by section 386 to 388 of the Pakistan Penal Code and also falls within the definition of terrorism given in Section 6(1)(k) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Undoubtedly, sufficient legal framework as discussed hereinabove is available on the statute book, but the same is lying dormant because of its non-application as people do not have trust in the law enforcing agencies to counter the deadly and influential persons who happen to terrorize the innocent citizenry and due to this reason no one comes forward. It is common knowledge that mafias i.e. groups of criminals involved in the commission of heinous crimes, such as recovery of bhatta, extortion of money, business of illegal weapons, narcotics, drugs, land grabbing, etc. had been working in other countries as well in a highly organized manner. Reference in this behalf may be made to the Sicilan and American Cosa Nostra, an Italian group also working in New York, but in those countries the crime was controlled by promulgating and implementing stringent laws, which we also have in our jurisdiction, namely, Anti –Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore, we can also control the same by applying such laws strictly. In USA, to control such underworld mafias, the State authorized through the courts seizure of properties of such like persons, if it was established that they had acquired such properties out of income from the proceeds of heinous crimes. In this behalf, reference may be made to the case of Bracy v. Gramley, Warden, {520 US. 899(1997), wherein the Supreme Court of United States did not show any concession to the culprits. There are so many other judgments, reference of which may not be necessary at this stage, where the Governments had succeeded to control the mafias after applying stringent measures.”

21. We have no reasons to disbelieve such confidence inspiring evidence. Trial Court has rightly appreciated evidence according to settled principles of law. It is high time for Courts to control offences of extortion of money by applying laws of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, strictly. Appellants deserve no concession at all. The Honourable Supreme Court in more than one case has held that approach of the court while deciding the criminal matters should be dynamic and it should take into consideration the surrounding situation and should not lightly set aside a conviction on technical ground if the Court’s conscience is satisfied that factually the convict was guilty of the offence. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of State through Advocate-General Sindh, Karachi v. Farman Hussain and others (PLD 1995 SC 1). Relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“2. Before touching upon the merits of the case, I may observe that there cannot be two opinions that the duty of the Court is to administer the laws as are operative in the country and if such laws fail to achieve the desired result, then it is the duty of the legislature to make necessary amendments therein. However, at the same time, it is also a well-settled proposition of law that while applying a particular law, the Court should take into consideration the object for which it has been enacted. The interpretation of the law should be placed in a manner which may advance the object and suppress the mischief for which the law in question might have been enacted and not to construe in a manner which may defeat the object of the law.

3. It is a matter of public knowledge that in Sindh, on account of kidnapping for ransom, commission of dacoities and other offences, the people are feeling insecured. The learned trial Court has dilated upon these aspects in details. I am inclined to subscribe to the view found favour with it. The approach of the Court in matters like the case in hand should be dynamic and if the Court is satisfied that the offence has been committed in the manner in which it has been alleged by the prosecution, the technicalities should be overlooked without causing any miscarriage of justice.”

22. For the above stated reasons, while and relying upon above cited authorities, we have come to conclusion that prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and trial Court has rightly appreciated evidence in it’s true perspective, dilated upon all aspects of the case and believed prosecution evidence by assigning sound reasons, therefore, we maintain appellants’ conviction and sentence awarded by trial Court. There is no merit in the appeals, resultantly, the same are dismissed.

23. Before parting with judgment, it is ordered that Registrar of this Court shall send copies of this judgment to learned Judges, Anti-Terrorism Courts and all District and Sessions Judges for circulation of the same amongst other Courts working under their administrative control.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Gulsher/PA