THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.60 of 2018

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date Order with Signature(s) of Judge(s)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Present: Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Appellant : Muhammad Suleman son of Gul

Shahwaiz Khan, through M/s. Mushtaq Ahmed & Raja Hassan Nawaz, Advocates

Respondent : The State through Mr. Ali Haider

Saleem, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh & Mr. Sagheer Ahmed Abbasi, Assistant Prosecutor General, SIndh.

Date of hearing : 12.04.2019

Date of Decision : 12.04.2019

J U D G M E N T

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J.– Through instant special criminal anti-terrorism appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 13.02.2018, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Anti-Terrorism Court No.VI, Karachi in New Special Case No.A-20 of 2013 (re: The State v. Muhammad Suleman @ Sabir Khan & another) in Crime No.57 of 2013, registered under Section 3/4 Explosive Substance Act read with Section 7 ATA, 1997 at police station Shah Latif Colony, Karachi, whereby the learned trial after full dressed trial convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 3/4 of Explosive Act read with 6(2)(ee) and Section 7(I)(ff) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him under Section 265-H(II), Cr.P.C. to suffer R.I. for fourteen (14) years with forfeiture of his property. However, benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.02.2013 at about 2015 hours, complainant ASI Javed Iqbal of police station Faisal Colony, Karachi, lodged FIR No.57 of 2013, under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act and stating therein that he heard an explosion from south eastern wall of the police station. He rushed there and found big hold in the boundary wall of the police station. The police personnel encircled the area, called the BDU team and the higher officials. The people outside the police station told that one young person aged about 25/30 years, wearing green colored shalwar kameez was seen fleeing the spot in injured condition. SI Akram Tanoli and ASI Abid Farooqi of BDU team came and inspected the whole area and they issued a certificate that blast had occurred by 200 grams of explosive substance.

3. Today this appeal is fixed for final arguments. Learned Counsel for appellant during the course of arguments submits that on merits though the appellant has a good case for his acquittal on the ground that the whole case of the prosecution rest upon the evidence of police officials and no independent witness has been cited to witness the event. He further submits that the appellant is facing the agony of protracted trial since 2013, therefore, according to him, he would be satisfied and shall not press this appeal on merits, if the sentences awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court are reduced to the period which he has remained in jail. Per learned counsel, the appellant is in jail since his arrest. He is in advance age and is only source for earnings of his family.

4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh has also raised no objection on the above proposition.

5. We have thoroughly examined the evidence so brought on record with the able assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh and learned Counsel for the appellant and it appears that no explosive substance material was secured from the place of incident, therefore, we are of the view that Section 6(2)(ee) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is not made out. It also reveals that Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, appears to made out, which provide that punishment may be extended to fourteen (14) years. In this case, as per Jail Roll dated 31.05.2018, the appellant has served out his sentences including remissions five (5) years and ten (10) months. Now almost one year has been passed, therefore, it may be safely said that presently accused/appellant has served out the sentences more than six (6) years, therefore, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellant is based on cogent reasons. The appellant is first offender. He is in advance age, he is in jail for about more than six (6) years from his arrest i.e. 06.03.2013, therefore, in the present scenario of the case, he has been sufficiently punished. In these circumstances, he needs to be given a chance in his life to rehabilitate himself.

6. Consequently, the conviction is maintained, however, the sentences awarded to the appellant by the trial Court through impugned judgment are reduced to one which he has already undergone.

7. With the above modification in the sentences, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.

JUDGE

Faizan A. Rathore/PA*