ZAIN SHAHID S/O SHAHID KAMAL (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

IN THE HIGH CO URT OF SIN DHAT ACHI

PreBenh Mr. I t/Etic,- Mohottltttad xaim Khan Aqha ntr l

SPI-. CRIMINAL A.T, APPEAL NO.1OO O! 2O2O

Appellant Zain Shahid 5on of Shahid Kamal tfuough Mr Raja Rashid Ali, Advocate.

!or Statc Mr. Abmr Ali Khicli, Addl. Prosecutor Gereral SindtL

Date of hearingl 14.0r.2022

Date of announccment: 19 0t 2|?2

TUDGMENT

Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J.- APPellant Zain Shahid son of Shahid Kamal has prelerred this SPe.ial Criminal Anti-Terrodsm APPeal against the impugned iudgment dated 20.07.2020 Passed by the leained ,udge, Anti- Terrodsm Cou:t No.XII, Karachi in SPecial Case No.169 of 2020, FI R No'35 ol2O2O !/ s.11-Hl 11-N/ 11-F(0(iD of ATA 1997 of f,s CfD, Ka-rachi whereby the appcllant zain Shahid has been convicted under Section 25tH(ii) Cr'P C' (or an offence under S€ction l'l-F(i) with R.l. for six months along with finc of Rs.l0,00O/, in case of failure to Pay fine, he shall suller S'I of04 months more' He was also sentenc€d for ollence u/s.11-H (i)(ii) with R L for ten years along with fine of Rs.50000/-in case ol failu.re to Pay fine, he shall suffer S l' of 06 monlhs more

2.The brief facts of the Pro8ecution casc as P€r FIR No 35/2020, under Section 11-H, 11-N, 11-F (i) (ii) of ATA 1997 registered at PS Cm, Karachi are that on 26.03.2020 ASI Muhanunad Hashim of f€ CTD/TTIC Karachi reteived an order No.DICP/Cm /R/27 d.ated .B.2A2A ttom t & in i! hich ASI f rereived orrler flom High_uPs fo! leSal Ploceedings against accused Zain Shahid, who is rcsident of NazLrEbad No3 Karachi who also belongs to one proscriH organization namely Daish, who is not only thc meribe! of such

e9

organizatior! but also collecting the donation or funding amount for such organizatio4 which is used for te.rodsm activities all ove! the counky due to which {inancial assistance is provided to terrorists and such act falls within the ambit of ATA, hence this FlR.

3.AIter usual investiSations charSe was fra$ed against the accused io which he denied alt the allegations leveted against hi.tr! He claimed to be innqient and p&yed for trial.

4.The prosecution to prove its case examined 03 P.vv's who exhibited various documents in support of the Prosecution case wh€(e alter the prosecution closed itg side. TIle aPPellant re\corded his statement under section 342 CI.PC whcrein he denied a.il the allegatiolrs leveled agaiNt him. He did not give evidence on oath or call any DW in supPort of his defencc case.

5.t-earned Judge Anti-Terrorism Cou* No.XII, Krrachi aftei hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and assessment ol evidence available on !e\cord, vide iudgment dated 20.07.2020, convicted and s€ntenced thc appellant as stated above. hence this apPeal has ben filed by the aPPellant against his conviction.

6, The facts of the case as well as evidence Produced beJore the tlial Court find an elabotate mention in the imPugled iudgmenL therefore, the sarne are not reproduccd here so ae to avoid duPlication and unnecessary rePetitiorl

7.Learned counsel for the appe[ant has contended that the aPPeltant is completely innocent and that he has been Jalsely imPlicated in this case by the police; that he is not a memtte! of any Proscribed orgadzation; that he was not collecting any funds for any ploscribed olSanizatiory that the so callcd collection book was foisted on him by the Police and that for any o[ the above teasons the appellant should be a.quitted oI the charge by being extended thc benefit o( thc doutt

I 8. On the other hand learned APG has fully suPPorted the impugned iudgment and has in particula! lelied on the fact that the aPPellant was caught red handed on the spot with a collection br.x)k Ior a proscribed organization and that t}lc he was already on the lV Schedule of the ATA due to his4

suspected terrorist activities. He has contended that the aPPeal is without merit and should b€ dismis.e€d.

9.we have heatd the arguments oI the leamed couns€l for the Parties' gone tlrough the entl€ evidenc€ which ha5 becn read out by Ieamed counsel for the appellanL and the imPugned judgnent with their able assistance and have considered the relevant law

10.After our reass€ssment of the evidence we lind that the prooecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable dout't against the aPPellant lor the Iollowing reagonsi

(a)Firstl), it rs an admitted Position that h: "PP"ll:Il' lor hir -as ,lready on the lV s<hedule of the ATA gusPected involvement in terrorist activities' An FtR in resPect oI such activities had been disPosed o( in "C" class based on teclmicalitieg.

O) That the FIR was lodged with PromPtitude on..the iasis of the appetlant being a member of a Proscribed organizahon wlo *as active in collecting funds for a teiorist organization. The aPP€Ilant has not denied that he was a membet oI a proccribed organization'

(c)That the aPPllant w'as arrested on the spot by the police on the basir of spy irforrnation and on hi! airest a iund raising book with the title of "Daish Paldstan Funding Fo; )ehad and HelP Mujahideen" containing 54 I.a,res iith 08 r€ceiPB having becn issued to dilferent people with diff".en a-ouitt" as rnendoned on the iounter foil of the receiPt was recovered fiom him along with RS 1500 in 3 notes of 500 each and one ball Point P€n aftl the last thrce counter fo s of the Iund laising book alt mmtioned RS 500 each.

(d)That the aPPethnfs signature was on the Iund raising iook which was sealcd on the sPot and kePt in sate custody. Likewibe the 3 RS 500 notes which tallieJ with the as;untc on the last 3 counter loils of the fund raising book r€aovered from the aPPellant

(e)That the arr€Bt and recovcry was made on the sPot by ihe police whose evidencc fully cofiobolates each other in all rnaterial resPects a9 well as the Prose(ution cas€ lt rs well settled by now that the evidence of a Police witness is as reliable as any other witness Proyided that no enmity exists between them and the accused and in this case no enmiry has been sug8ested against any Poli(e. officer' Ihus we bclieve the Poli(e evidence whlch ls corrohrative in all rnaterial resPects Reliance in this resPect is Placed on the .ase of Muetlq Ahmed V The State (2020 SCMR 474)

4-n-

(0 That there ale no rnajor conkadictions in the evidence of the PW's and it i5 well settled by now that minor conhadictions which do not effect the materiality of the evidence aan be ignored. In this resPsct reliance is Placed on Zakit Khan v State (1995 SCMR 1790).

(g)That although no independent maslur was associated with the arrest and recovery of the aPp€llant and the Fund raising book it has come in evidenae tllat no independent pelson was available at the Place of aEest and rccovery.

(h)No ctoubt it is fo! the Prosecution to Prove its casc against the accusetl beyond a reasonable doubt but we havc also aonsidered the rlefense case which is one oI false imPlication simPlicitcr' The accused did not give cvidencc on oath and did not call any DW in support of his defence case and in tight of the ovcr whelrning prosecution evidence as mentioned above we disb€lievc the deJence .u"e * alter thought in the face of reliable, tsust worthy and "r, inspiring pir6.'cution evidence confidence

11.Thut for the reasons mentioned above, we Iind that the Prosecution has provcd its case beyond a reasonable doubt against thc aPPellant and as such the t[pugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed'

E

JUDGE

LI