Imran Malik (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

8oL

IN THE HIGH COUR.T OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAT)

Before

Mr. Justice Naimatullal-r Phr-rlpoto Mr. Justice Mohamrnad l(ariur Ithatr Apilra Y Cr. Jail Appeal No.D-2O I ol 2O lCt

hnran Malil'' Versus

The State

Appellant: hnran Malik Through Mian 'l'ai M.r.tharlttra<J l(eer io, Advocate

Respondent : The State Through Mr. Shatrzat.lo Slaleetrt Nahyool , Assistant Prosecttl-r-rt' ( iencI aI

Date of hearing 04.o5.2017

Date of judgrnent 04.o5.'20\7

JUDGMDN'T

L

MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA J. Appcllarrt Itrt.ra,tt l:l/o /\l-rr lt,rl Sattar was tried by learned Judge, Anti-'l'erl'c-'t-isttr (-irrtrl. l'4itl.rrrll<lr.a.l" in Special Case No.13 ol 2009, arising out ol'critlrc Nc'.'l.i:t t.rt '.Xlt)'J. registered at Police Station Tor,vn Mirpurkhas lbr oltettce I,lttrlet' sections 5O7 PPC r/w section 617 ATA. Appellant was [ourrd Hr-rill 'r J,u judgment dated 26.O5.2O1O (the impugue<l .irrr-lplrtrerrl) r-tttrl \rra:r convicted and sentenced (1) undel'sectiorr .5O7 I'L'C lo strller lt.l. lbr (l:.1 years, (2) under section 7(h) Anti-Terrorism /\ct, l1J9'/ (A'l'A) lr-' srrller R.l for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/ Itr caie <tf cletatrlt, irr payment of fine the appellant shall further suffet- t?.1. tor (Xr trrortths Both sentences were ordered to rttn concurrelltly. llcrrclll r-rl Set:ttorr \ 382-8 Cr.P.C. \ras also extended to the acct-lsc(.[. l'[16 rrp6rcllnrtt lta:, challenged the impugned judgment tl-rror-tgh this instarrl appeal

2.The bricf facts of the prosecution <:ase as clisclonerl i11 ll 1e' |i'l l.' are that complainant Inspector Gul Abbas, loclgecl l''-l.li' at liriice Station Town Mirpurkhas stating therein that he is ltrt;ha,rge r.rf " lI-i" Madadgar centre Mirpurkhas. on 21. 10.2009, he alorrgwil,h lcleplrorrr operator PClg45 Imran allcl wireless opelatL)t l:[C'/16rarrtttr]rlitr ^.'

usual were available at their office; at abottt IO22 lroul's telel]h<'rtrc operator PC Imran attended the call, thereaft,er hc lolt.l lrirtt llral ltotrr cell No.o332-2231908 one anonymous perso'rl issuecl I,ltr-eals tlral. he will commit suicide bomb attack withil 1-2 days iu Mitl,rrrrl<ltzr:r ()ilrr and that before the blast he will make aerial tiring l'<'t <:te;rl-e l.elrr:rl'artrl wilt firstly kill prominent doctors by rvay o[ tar-get l<iltirrg I,l tr:rt lhc phone was disconnected, as such they cl-recked ttre trlttttber r>tr cl,l

Y

and found it to be same. Thereafter, they r:tttrveyerl rrre'rs'rt{e Q!r wireless control and put the Mirpurkhas llolice orr lriglr:rletl :arrrl lreLl nakabandi, so also kept such entry No.3 a1 abor.tl l()'-i"l Irortti itr roznamcha register' Then on the sante rlay t.lr'rl'y 'lrl I'eltllrl lt'tt' t)lrcl:llrlr PC Imran ended at about 1600 hours atrcl Le leptrotre rlpet'atcrt HC/ 1114 Muhammad saleem resumed his duty clttrirrg whicl:r tre received calls at about 2O17 hours,2OSO hottts arrcl 21:lii',1 ltottts li-on-r salne cell number by the same unknown [-)ersolt, itr' urL-tir:lr Callet threatened that he will commit bomb blast,, ^rticirlc nl(.ar:l<r: ir, Mirpurkhas City to kill the general public' f)tt trrr:ctvttrr' :rrrt lr "tll: wireless message was again Conveyed frort coltrtll t'oottt irtrrtrt:tliale l1r and police was again put on high alert, such el-ltries wele hept irr claill' diary register at 2Ol7 hours entry No.7, 2O5O l-r.or,rrs errljy No.() an(l 2339 hours entry No. 11. On next day i.e.2i-l.l(1.20()9 olrr:r':.tlot P(l ,r..

Imran was performing his duty wher-r at a.botrt il0rllli hol-u's Ltr" tcrreivc'I call from the same cell number by same perso itr rrrlrir:lt llrc r':allcr threatened that he will commit bomb blast, l.lretl sllclt lrtc-qs:'rtic ivurl: conveyed on wireless to police control and mobiles were p11t lrrt [righ alert and held r-rakabandi; such eltry was maintaiuecl itt t'ozrtatncha register vide entry No.9. 'I'hereafter complaitlanl, 661.1ns al l''olice Lilali'ttr Town Mirpurkhas and lodged such F.l.R.

3.After completing the usual invest.iga-Liorl, l.rolice :it-tlrrlril lerl l-hc challan against above named accused.

4 Formal charge against the accused was fr:antec] by l-he [tial t:or-t|l ,( at trx.4. The accused vide plea (trx.5) pleaclerl not gr-till1,rtt,l t l:tttttc,l l" be tried ()'-) u\rilrri-'racs

5.h-r order tO prOve ils caSe the ltroSectrtion e.xarrlirre(l (PW,s) and thereatlter learnecl SPP closect the sicle t''l l-lrc ;-ttrt:rat ttli'rrr vide his statement Ex.I7.

6.Ttre statement of accused was reool-dec[ r.rnder sectiott l-i4 Cr.P.C. at Ex. 18, in which he has clel-riecl tlte alleg;rl,ir.rtt:: t

gaq

prosecution while claimipg his innocence . Irl Lris said statertent, l.l-rc accused has further statecl that the police ha.s talsely irrrplit:aLe'l lrrtrr in this case at the instance of their high-ups as IrIany ottrer' per-sttns were arrested after his arrest and were let ot1 trralalir lc!1'. llral ltrc lllM did not pertain to him and had been foisterl ort ltitrr rtttrl hc ivar' arrested from his house. He did not exanlirre l.rimself otr oa(.1t, howevet ' he led defense evidence in disproof of the Lrt-crsecrtl.itrrr carjc l,'t' exarnining DWs Bundoo and Muharnrnacl Aslanr (l-l)."'s'l') arrrl respecLively) ancl produced newspapers clippings i e ll) <leilv I(rrr''rislr datecl 04.11.2OO9, (2) daily Jang datecl 03'l l'il()Og arrrl (:l) 'lrtt rnr dated 03. 1 1.2OO9.

7.The learned trial court after hearing tl-}e learrrecl cor-rt:rsel lot ll rc parties and ou the assessment of the entire evide.r:lcc <.x,rttvicl-e<l a rr, I sentenced the accused / appeltant as stated r,rbttve llrtorrqlr I lrc impugned judgment.

8.By order dated 06-o6-2012 the appellant was r.e lcase,l ort bail lrr this court pending the hearing of this instant appca'l

g. The facts of this case as well as evidencc proclttce<l lrclbre tl rc trial court find an elaborate mention irr the irttPttgr terl ir rrlgtrtcr II ,,\- passed by the trial court therefore the same ttlav ttol ['e teplr-rrlr'rr:crl here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetiliotr'

10.Learned counsel for the appellaut lias t:ctrrLetr,le,.l llrnl lltr, appellant did not rnake any threatening phone calls to police [5; llierl there was no eye witness to the phone calls whictr tre allegedl.y rnr'tcle l-tr the potice; that the appellant was llot the owuel' oI eittret ttre pl-r0ttc {)r the SIM; that the threats continued after his att'est whiclr sltor'verl lhal the police had got the wrong man and that the Pttc'rtr.r arrrl illN4 lr'T'l been malafidely foisted on him by the police tn orclct l.r-r sltotar l.lteir efficiency and as such the prosecution hacl failccl to l.rrrlve its crasc against him beyond a reasonable doubt and as such he was errlitlerl 1o be acquitted.

11.Learnecl A.P.G. appearing for the state rvhile 1rr,t;rpttt'lirrp" llrr' qirretr l'1' impugned juclgrnent stressed the close corroboral'ive errir-letrr:c the police and the fact that the impugned judgnrenl [lur, I lttllY ':r'vc|c'I all aspects of the case.

12.We have considered the argurnents of learner] counsel' per-r-r-secl the record and the relevant law and case law' .,-.

.-- ?or

13.S.507 ppc concerns Crirninal intifiridation by arl a.lr()lryrru)r'rrl communicationandingeneralfortheATAtobeath'acl'e(l[-hctelr'rrtsl i e trtctrr be a design and intent to put the public in fear ol'their safety reil

74 In our view there appear to be three main issues itr llris t:asc

(a)Whether the telephone calls to police 1.5 were nta.cle al a'll antl

T

if so what was the content of those calls'

(b)Whether the caller was the appellant'

(c)whether the content of the calls fell withilr I,lte rltrrl'tlol.llrr

ATA.

15.Turning to the first issue whether the telephone r:alls t.o 1'rolicr' 15 were made at all and if so what was the coul-ent ol'll.rose '::tll:r.

16.BasedontheevidenceofthePW'swhodeallrarif.htlrecallsr[)11/ Mohammed Gul Abbas (who was the complairtartlwhr-' i;tr:13 irt':lrr''rp'(' of police 15 who lodged the FIR and was intl'icately itrrrr-'lverl in tirc calls), PW Imran (who was the first shift telept1e11s lrpel'at.ol' r'vh.' received some of the calls), PW Sateem (urlro \ra-'-: sec'rtttl :'Irill A telephone operator who received some ol the calls) arrcl P\r\/ lrrratlt;ll:'rlr (who was the wireless operator who put out thc high alet't wat-tlir!8.s t() r' the Mirpurkhas police following the calls) we lirrrl l.lreir''-'rir]ctr' ll) lrr' convincing and fully corroborated not only through theit oral cvidclr'rr but also through their actions as is supported b-y the variot lr: rozr-ramcha entries which came on record ch-rring the l-rial. II'no rt-t':lt calls were received then it would not make sense) t(l trtakc flrztralltcl t^ entries and thereafter put the police or-r higl-r alert. 'l'tris !s trtot'e 3" since it was done on two occasiOnS Covering 2 clays alrrJ lrvo :icl)'rral' ShiftS. None Of these witnesses were itr our vicw parl-icr.tlarly 'lerrrtr;"1':'I on cross examination especially as it seelrls that a't this slzrtlc l-hrr defense was not particularly controverting the lact ttrat. f-hr.eat'crrirrfl

I

calls may have been made prior to the au'est oI the aplrellarrl- l)espitc ()rl such PW's being police officers in oul-view in l]-ris instartt:e' L"irse'l the facts and circumstances of this case ancl th.eir evidenr;e, csPe<;ialh' as the accused at this stage was r-rot iclentitiabLe l[re} t]nlt ['r'ltelicverl ()r.l-t l on this aspect of the case.especially as it seems that theil L-1. 61 1 statements were recorded promptly and there !1/as rl( | t rla-i'r' contradictions between those statements and l-heir eviderlce al lrinl lt

is settled law that in some instances police clllcials carr lre ir'ri Fir-"''r-l ;r

witness as other witnesses. The only faull- on the Pat-t oI l.l re complainant appears to be that he delayed the tegisl-er.itrg ol t-Lrc FII'I ['y a day which should not have been the case es;-recially as f-lris rvas a Serious tcrrorist threat and may have provecl lataI to l-[te lrt'rr:c'--ttIirItt case. It was not at that time possible to natne lhe aplrcllarrl- irr tlrc lill'l as the identity of the caller at that stage was ttnlctlt)',trtr. l-for,vctzct tt('l -r with standing this short coming and the [act l.tral. the litll larrgrrrrgc ()rlc was not used in the roznarncha entries, for et<artttple, a dr-:tttatrrl ol Crore was made during one of the calls which was r.to{' tttetrtiotter.l irr the roznamcha, we find that the calls were trtacle attll te<lcivetl ^tt'.| there contentwas of a threat to the public base,J la-tt-:cl1r rrtr l.lrr- t1'l.tt'tt: of the aforementioned PW's after receiving the calls'

17.The next issue is whether the caller was tfte appellalrl.' ltl 1;t-tt view, based on the reasons mentionecl below, \'vc ill c ltttl <:lJttvittt:t''' I from the evidence that the caller was the appellar-rt'

(a)Thele was no eye witness to him lrlal'*illg alt.y strt'lr r:;'rll;'

(b)There was no recording of his call whereby I'tis e;<ar:l ttrr, r , l:r , could be captured or where by ntoclcLt't rle vir:cs ttl \:r 'ir . recognition could have been used. Iiurthertnore , rrorlc nl llrr A telephone operators who actually hear<1 tl re ca.ller' ()1/er' llrc pltotrc were ever confronted with the voice ol'tLre appellarrl ltr see i{ it had a likeness.

(c)As per memo of arrest and recovety ncitl-rcr the l.eleplrone rrol. SIM were said to be damaged however whetr' Ltre SIM wr-rs exhibited in court it was damaged.

(d)pw Hussain rcgional manger o[ U-Fro[e r-:otrlirtrted lha.( llrr: calls to police 15 had been rnade h-om l.l-le l,llM;rl ih(. relorrnill times and produced a computerizedlogto thi:i cfl'ccl. l-l(rrrrerror Itc was unable to say whom the SIM belongecl to'

(e)Despite the SIM and mobile pholle beir:rg irr workitrg r'rr':lcr according to PW Attaullah, who r,vas tlrc ILt c'f' ttre ,.lase, :rrtrl allegedly proved this by making a call to PW l-rhcrl.ci l(ltrltt r,rrl tt' was a police officer Mushir in tl-ris c.lsc rl(l 311r;[1 ,::rll :-,ltorx,ctl tt1'

on the computerized record of PW Hussain relat-irrg, Lo llrts ttotv damaged slM.Likewise PW Photo l(han did uol- cortlit.trt itt ,[rir evidence whether such a call was macle Lo him. E)verl if'llrc ':arll wasnotpickedupbythereceiveritwclr-tlctlraveshou,tll-ll)i.1:]

sol either a misscd call or nol receivecl call. ItrLercstirrgly l''w I'l Irlc' llrr I(1-ran stated in his evicleuce that hc tlicl rrol [i11r'rp rvlrr-l.ltct phone and SIM was working when Jrc ^aw iI itr tlatrrap"c'I condition at trial. Thus, therc are Seve,'e rlor'rlr1 s ;r:r lr-t u'ltclltr-t the SIM was even in working orcle,' whctr iL wa1 r'('()\/('rcrl lr-l alone whether the appellant made the s21ll5 rtt qLle:tl-r(rrr'

(t)AS pCr memo Of arrest and recovell, lrcrtl tct llrc trrt'lrtlr- Ilt('ttr'' nor SIM ivcre scalecl- This was actrtltttcrl Ir-t' lr!\/ Al'l ;rr tll:rlt' rvlro was the IO and made the arrest attcl t'e'-ovcr.!' rrr llr:r ( r')'i examination. Although he is contrarliclctl lrl' l'\A/ l'lrrl" l'lt rtr ' lr"

as Mushir says in his evidence tlrat 11161r11r1-rtle irrrr.l lllfll 11rr'tc sealecl on ttle spot ThLls, both thc photre;rrrcl lllM '-trtrl<l lt;t'r- becn switchcd or planted.

(g)With rcgard to the identity ol lllc t)\;\ille|. rl{ llrc IiINI |.\^/ Hussain did not make any stlch iclclllitl''al tott :rtt'l lltc .ttlv eviclence available that the call came li'orrr llrc a1'; rell:rrtl .'rt-r rt'r ,.JlCr per PW Photo Khan and Pw Io Attaullalr's 1-6rcllll rrl tr.l information" that the appellant tlras tlre cirlle I irlt, I ;t'-'r o1-1 11111r 11', PW Photo l(l-ran he was available at railwal' p:ttt:r<;k'

L

(h)Accorcling to his own eviclcrtr.c l.w I() All.ertll;rlr I,', 1-1t"'rl "secret informatiop" about the ap;rclla'trl al 'lptrr ;rl llrc l'll -ro lrr

had ple ty of tirne to arrange f91-lrrtlepctttlrtll Nrrt"lrt'r ll.rr''- r' t hc corrrpletely failect to do so. The ap;-rcllattl ltras at'tr-sLcrl trt llrr- day timc hours (Sprl according to PW Al.taullah) arrrl ac..ttl'tlttrt' r.r (-r ltCt'r(ltt;r tO PW PhotO I(han tl- was a ltuSl' r',t'ca ;rltrl ol gathered at thc time of the arrest bttt trorte ol lllctrr r^raai ttt:ttlc ;-r'' independent mushirs in violation of S.1(l-l (-'r'.P(' Ar:ctrt'clirrr.l lrr

Photo Khan's eviclence the IO asl<-erl ltitrr lo t-'r'l ittrlr-1'..'1111"11 Mushir's but all refused. This contractrcts l'W I() /\ll:rrrllalr rr'lrr' states that no person gaLhercd at Llrc ttttrc o[ arI'r'rl (lerptlc tl I being a brtsy road an(l he does irol lttettlirttr a:.1<ttrl'. |'| t.rIrr l(lrltr to sccl< out an independent Mushir

I'\Ii I{

(i)The qllcstioll also afises as to why rl loolt ':o lr\rrfl lrrr Attaullah to arrest thc appellartl ie orret' i1 lrrrtrt'r'rllct t"r ct r-r't'l''rt' tlte,,SeCret infOfmation,, especially aS irC.,()r-(ltrrr-i 1,, lltr- PW Pfroto Iihar-r thc PS rvas onlr''11{NT's a"*':'' fi"rir rlr r'l '' orresl (t-atlrval' llattacl<) lr'htcll itrforrrr:rl"'tr lr-1'l r'c"tt 1"' r]' titrouglr the ''secref- tnformatloti' 'rtll tlrr- rt.ttt"l' 'r'l'

8oa

ltll.rtc--r'' there in the mobile and arrestecl the aprpellar-rl' whilstPWPhotol(hansaysthattheintbr.trta.l-iotra'\'4.:.lr-1. tlt;rt whilst they were otlt on patrol PW lO Atl-aullalr sav:: received this "secret inforrnation" whilsl I'hey rn"'ct c al llrr^ aprpellatrl' rrt:{"nrl Despite the IO having the close location of the orvtr cvirlertr-e lcfl of rushing to the spot from the PS he as per his l-relore finallv the PS and paLrolled Kippro Nappa , Civil l-Iosprital Ll rr: a'1-rpcllarrt' coming to soldier rest house whe.e they t,r-rrrrl This long delay olover 3 hours in arr-csting- te al'pctlartl t-l [i'r'r!tt it ['l i ltns f]ot'tq' place which was only 2 KM's away ft-otrr 1-l rc l{r Irrrirott 'vlrett il i:'

completely unexplained and does trot ap1-real g'tvtltt-: velv considered that the appellant hacl allegedly lrer:tt l ies tr serious threats about causing terrorist relal-et arrtivil r

altrl rrray rvell Mirpurkas City and the police werc or-r lrtgtr aler-|. have disappeared from where his lvas lor:al'er'l 15 i( r'vas tlol. hir houseorplaceofworkandevaderlarresl,,Irrl-lrisr.esller:|-t.r:lirr-trce is placed on Muhammad Asif v' The Statc ('10 l'i Ij( llvll': 'l f l{')

the policc sl-al'icrtt ltr lirllor'r' fi) It is also significant that on leaving lrirr ')\'vlr up the "secret information" PW IO Al.tar.rllalr l-'1' sl;ttttitr lr:l aclmission macle no entry of his leavilrg llre p'rlir-n alon'ethereasollwhy.Thisomissiona,lottcr:crllltll.lr:{al-:rJlr-rt[tr. prosecution case. The significance ol ttre alrseltcc o[:'rtjclr departure entty was highlightecl in ttre r'.:trFc .l M(rrrr ,rr<l zl ltr I'l rrl t:irl' others v The state (2016 PCr'Ll 1706) lll' t'e{etettce of Long through Central Prison Hyderabad v State (1"11J9 P.CR.[J 595) which was a Division Bencl.r jr'tclgrnent' ol'tbis Cotttl

and Shaukat Ali V The State (2004 YLR ll-;tr)

(k)With regard to the identity of ttre apl'rellar.rl- this irr L)rrr.r/r'\:\/ has uot been satisfactorilv explaitlecl ll"otn Lhe cvirlerr<:e' A:r

mentioned above the only inforrnatiotr thr;1. il li lre!.:rorr rta a namedlmrancamefrom,.secretinformaLion,,.,l.trisit-r|tlr.trtaLttrrr gavethenameo[lmranandwlret.etollrrrlhirrtlrrttl.[let,cistr<' 1r/:r:i ct"-r git'ctr' evidence that a descriptio. o[ his apl)eal,rrr('c trtrl scert Thus, if I'jW PhoLo I{han ancl PW IO Atl-allr'rah lla<''l otrl lttttt"t I'tt'i);

Imran before how were they able l'o plcl< lritrt leltrartr ttt llra-l area such as railway pattack? Anct why clid hrrrarr as lte 1ta<J area for 3 hours apparently loitering arotttl<l especially no reason to be there?

l,I

i-'.01

r crt t lit it t l-l tc

(1)the mashirnama o[ arrest and recovet-1, rlc,cir trr rl writing on the rnobile pholre of "l love l'1111" 'r'lttr lt lrr-ttt1-" 'r distinguishing feature ordinarrl-\' shotlk-l tt.I ltr\vr- lrcr-rt rtrt'r'rc'l NeitherisPWloAttalluah.sallegeclcalltr,l'W|'lrrrIr'|..11;rtr mentioned in the Mashirnama as prlooI llttrt llrr' 1llt"ttc rvrt'r

testedandfoundtobeirrworl(lngC:ottclilttrtrllll|16|1111r.rr1 recovery.

(rn)lt is surprising that the zrplrellattl r'r'rtq:rttrlslr-rl trr.;ti llrr railway phatack since this is an area wttir-lr lt:rs rt"{lrrtrF' l'r rl.' witll him bearing in mind tl-rat he rloes rrol rrr"r l' [r't 1111"11 llrr,'rr-';'' and was apparently uOt viSilipg tlll1r (lltc ()l vvlllt ;rrr',' 'tttc :tl lltr

time of his arrest but just apparerrtll. lortcririg irtottlrrl a{ 5l'trr ott his own.

(n)The news paper articles were protltr r'<-''-1 l-r1' lltc :rplrcll:rtri ;rl trial went unchallenged and indicalcs l.llat srrt'lr lltrc:'rlcttttttl '':rllr' were still being made Lo the poltcc rlfl-c r- llr' :ttrc':l rrl llr' p'rrl lltr'

I

appellant which is an indicatior-r that the polt'-c ltray lt:trrc l),1.: l:'1 l(Cl '!r/rong man. This is also the plea lt,lriclr ||1e ;-r1'rlrellarll

I

throughout the trial and Lhat tl-re renl ct.ttplrl \rAir ()rr.. I(lilrrl:rtIl

I

l i his sister who PW lO Attaullah acln-rils l(r ttrletr.gnlitr;.'' llr'- 'l:r1 eat.lier in the CaSe. The giSt Of the lte.vs l)rlPet rr li..lr"r 1't'trltt' l r'r I

by tlee appellant before the trial ('(rt u l arr- q..l .rrl l'.'l,'r'r' l.'t ' :'"'

of refcrence:

..In daily Jang dated (}3.1. I..2oo9 iI il; rrte rrlttrttcll lltlri police airested one Asif Ali aiorrg,vitlr rrrobtlc lrlttrltr- 11'11.r i-. accl.rsed for issuing threats to I 5 polrce car rlt-e llrrr I I lrr:" will cause bon-rb blast at irnpor-lanl 216211: rrl l.ltc t,tlv l-lr informed the police that one of lrrs (ricrrr.l.r lrr-r:r tt'rr', I lri'r rnobile and issued such Lhl'eat5 [o polrcc f'rt rr'lri' lr lr'- lur" no k11owledge.

In daily Kawish dated 04.11-.2OO9 tI is tttetrttotrqr'l l-lr:rl police arrested one Abdul Latif s/o Al-rcltrl ltat-tttt lr:rttltrt';rr irom Goth Karo Panhwar or1 tlre:rllcgal tott llt:rl llrrorrl-il r nrobile plrone of his frtellcl llt- t-lrlle..| 1l,lltt.c ,ttt,l ''',..1,. threats that tl-rcy will spread tct r<)t ttt Ilrc crllr' IndailyJurratdated03.I.l.2(}09ilt.ltttr.ttl-trrtrotlllr:rl threats of bomb blast at Maclarlgar' (-'c tro Mtt ;'rttt l. lt;r-. ;r,t,l Pcoples' Meciical College I\Teur:rlrrlr;rlr lirlrr r t' t-rlr 'l "'r p"r"ot, Ilamely Asif Wijlo l{/o Ciallrol- i}lr;rrrl ;-tttrl 'rlrrtl''tti ti Sal College, who inforrlrccl therl tris tt.rol'rlc 1,ltilttc r":t with his friend. Therc u,ere also threal s <.''{ lr()ttttr l'rlir:,| trt Peoplcs, Medical Coliege Nawa bslllr l r lr-rr t l,|'rt t tr ltl A l lal ri';r r

gto

(o)Inhis5..342Statementtheappella'tttha-sstal.eclast-tl1r{cl which is the stancewhich he has takeu througltr.'r.tt l-lrc lilial atrr'l cross examined the PW's on.

"l atn not involved ir-r this case 'f Lte lroli<:c lt:r! l;r l:icl-\' implicated me at the instar-rce of prolicc higlrrrp .r]ii .r]|ralty other persons were arrested after n)y arrest 'urcl k't o[f malafidety.IproduceNewspapersirrwhichl-l-rislht:[rl,as clisclosed. These are, Daily l(arvish (.ll 4.1 L.rlolllt, l.)ailt' Jangdt3.1l.2009andDaily.-lttlra.ldtllll';ll)(-)'-)'l'hc Sirrrdonotpertalnstomearrllltatllrr:clr,firisl-erl against me and I was arresterl froru tny ltouse' I pral' for justice." (bold added)

(p)The appcllant brought two f)W's "pl]1r [1rl-11 as ''l/i't;rrtlttt-:rirr::'r corrobora[ed the fact that the appellafrt was ar|estetj ftrrrrt lris house on 27-lo-2o09 at around 12.3O (mictnighl,) try luslrector Ayoub Dars (who by order datecl 2B-1()-2OO9 rvas placerl irr charge of the Investigation team to find tttc persott respottliilrle for the threatening calls who was rtot caller.l h1r llrr 1'rt'oser:trlirrtr tO give evidence) and nothing l,'r'as recovcrcrl [rottr httrt at.ir.l l-lt;rI he was taken for investigation. This is ztlso ttrc lirre ol llre defense which the appellant tooli at tl'ial. Adrrritle,Jly sr1lr' o{ these u,ituesses was his grandlather and l.hc otlrer:t h-icnrl atrrl are both intere sted witnesses. Florvever l:ol lr ttr<- l(cY '\riltrr':r'-rr-':'

L

about thc identity of the caller l-reir-rg tlrr'; a-plrellatrt:rr',': lrrllr interested wiLnesses both being police offir:e|n (l'\A/ I'l rrrl,} Iilr:rrr and PW IO Attaullah) neithcr of wfrose evirlcttce itr otrt rrit.-r'ti tr' credible, trust worthy or conlidence inspiring irr t'c:rper,'t o[ !lri:r aspect of the case and both of whonr itr ourr vrcrv rvr:rc l.r;tdl-r' damaged during cross examination and slrot-llrl lravc, lr,r:rctl ot' the facts and circumstances of this particular- casc-:, .itlil'rccl atr independent Mushir at the time of the at'rcsl o{ llrc a[1rcll;rrrl which would have given greater credibility to their evirle tr, r.-

(q)As mentioned above in this paragraph lT there al;peat's lo hc llumerous important contradictions between tl.re r.:videlr.cc (}l' l-lrc two key police PW's (Photo l{han and IO Atl-aullah) rcgardir.rr" llrr. arrest and recovery of the appellant tttrrJ the r.-itr-:Ll!t!starr':'l:' leading up to it. It is true that fitirror ae1.111a{ir-:tirttrs r;r;ill tt('l lrr'

fatal Lo the prosecution case []r-rt tlre lr.r-llTlel'rlr l:r 1trt1 rql l;t it I contradictions in the evidence of the two l<cy prrosr-:r:tt ior ( r

witnesses regarding the arrest alld recovety ol' attrr-l ften; l.lrc r:rri(lnrrr-'' appellant (PW Photo Khan and PW IO Attarrllatr) rirrhrtse

g tl

()r' we have already found to be neither credible, l'|jttstr,vr-rt-tlty confidence inspiring) in our view are to :;rir':lt art c'xl.crtl u'l )crr read in the context of correctly identifying Llre r;aller r-rl'tlrc threats that when taken together' 61r1<1r-1ttl lrr tttai"r contradictions which evidence thc appcltarr( cartttr.rL ilr r)rlr \ricr\r be safely convicted on without strong' ':redible ertrcl rr-'lialrlc (l,t5c rrr corroborative evidence which we find to bc lackiu;i irr this terms of the identity of the caller of Lhe tlrr:cats l.rt 1r()li,:c ll' lrr this respect reliance is placed ou Zahir LIhnrr & other:s 1- 'fh+r State (1995 SCMR 1793).

18.It may be that if only one or two of'the lactors itr lrnr.'ngral'lr I'i wel.c present then this would not have becrr latal 1e llrc lrrr)Irc( trli(trl (ltc case however when all such factors are takeo. as a whole I'rnr'l evidence is read in its entirety we reach the irresr:alral-'lc ':r)ttrrlttiri('tt that for the reasons mentioned in paragrapl'r !'/ above lve :r|c trf llrc considered view that the prosecution has not beetr allle k' ptrrve tlta-l the appellant was the person who made the threat,s l.o lxrlir.:c lli lri' telephone.

19.Admittedly, an unwitnessed case sttch a.s l.lris i< clillrt:rrll l0 prove, but the cardinai principles o[ critnitral .ir-rsti<;e t]lrttltol l'' sacrificed at the alter of expediency simply bccar-tse rv(:) ::ll'e P2t5'sittr'. through difficult times in terms of acts of tet'roristtt ztgzrirr:l llrl. lll:rlc The prosecution has the obligation to pt-ove its rrus'r lrctror,l ;r reasonable cloubt and the benefit of the doubt must go k-r l.hc ir(r(:rl:rr'(l as of right and nOt aS of Concession. In this reslrect rel'et'ett':e i:i ttr:r'lr to l-he case of rariq Pervez v' The stato 11clt)l'i il( ll\41': 1345).Furthermore, it was recently held by the l{on'trle ljul.rtcrr:tc Cllttt'l in the case of Hashim Qasim v state (crinrirrat Aplreals [J.. I lli ;rrrrl 116of 2013) dated 12u'April 2ol7 inrespectolthc trctrelil ol''lortl'l :rl

pata 20 by reference to the case of Rlaz Masih (@ Mithoo v' 'lllte fll al'<r

(NLR 1995 Crt.694) that cven a single douht, il ftrtrtr<1 t'easott:'rltlr'' -< would entitle the accused person to acquittal 41161 not a t:ottrl.rirtaltorr ol several doubts is bedrock principle of justice'

20.In this case as per paragraph 17 above vue l-rarrc gl'ave rlrrrtl'l-: about some elements of the prosecutiorr case a.trtl a.s t'-lr llr| lrr-irr'Iti ;.'rt

of sucl-r doubts lnlrst go to the appellant' ln esseuce pt'tttra lrrr'it rr appearstousthatsuchthrea|eningcallsweremadeat-ld!.er:eivr:rll,'.' the police 15 but not by the appellant. Insteac[, il appear.:,r 1-rr.itrta l'r'-r'- l{)

g lL

Lhe evide,ce that the police may have, in order to show their '.or, cllicicocli in light of the abo\re referred order dated 28-10-2009 from

l.jl' Mit'f,rrrrkbas u'hereby the police were tasked with catchine the 1:rrl1-rr-i t- urithin a given deadline and were subject to submitting daily

l)roBless t:eports to the said SP, and to allay public fears about a City as such rumors had been l.,olerrl-ral tclrorist attack in Mirpurkhas and most flying around in the public domain, arrested the appellant probably foisted the SIM and phone on him'

';.1. lJy way of completeness since the appellant has not been found lo lrc l-lre llerson who made the threats to police 15 his convictiott urr,lcrl-treA]lAintheimpugnedjudgmentwillautomaticaltyfallalor-rg r,rril-l r ltis convictiou under 3.507 PPC

:22. I'hus, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case l-.reyorrcl a, reasonable doubt against the appellant and that the as such set asidc aptrrellalrl. is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the appellant' thc irnpugned judgment, up hold this appeal and acquit '),i\. 'l'lrese are tlte reasons for our short order of even date' LIyrJet'abad:

r ry:/, .

JUDHIT

.l L)al-ccl: 04-O5-2O17

JUDGE

lt