MUHAMMAD ABID S/O NAZEER AHMED (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

I Present:

Mr, lustice Mohaffimail Kaiffi Khan Agha Mn lustice Atshad Hussain Khan,

SPL, CR. A.T. APPEAL NO,59 OF 2021

Appellant Muhammad Abid son of Nazeer Ahmed through Ms. Abida Hashmi, Advocate.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor. Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T. APPEAL NO.50 OF 2021

Appellant Faisal Mehmood @ Motta son of Mehmood Hussain through M/s. Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar and Abdul Qadir, Advocates.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T. APPEAL NO.57 OF 2021

Appellant Muhammad Shakeel @ Banarsi son of Muhammad Haroon through Mr. Muhammad Imran Meo, Advocate.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers

Page I of 26

?o\

SPL. CR. A.T. APPEAL NO.68 OF2021

Appellant Abdul Qadir Hingoro son of Muhammad Hingoro through Mr. Muhammad Imran Meo, Advocate.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A,T. APPEAL NO.69 OF 2021

Appellant Syed Kazim Raza Rizvi son of Syed Nasir Raza ttrough Mr. Muhammad Imran Meo, Advocate.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutot. Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T. APPEA L NO.70 0F 2021

Appellant Shabbir Ahmed @ Farhan Mulla son of Dabir Ahmed through Mr. Inayat Ali Mirza, Advocate.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussairy Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T, APPEAL NO,71 OF 2021

Appellant Mehmood Hassan Khan son of Moazzam Hussain through Mr. Muhammad Aqil Zaidi, Advocate.

I

Page 2 of 26

I 7oS

Respondents The State through Mr. I Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T. APPEAL NO.75 OF 2021

Appellant Aamir AIi @ Sarphata son of Shoukat Ali through M/t. Muhammad Ilyas Awan and Asghar Qureshi, Advocates.

Respondents The State tfuough Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Ptosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T. APPEAL NO.79 OF 2021

Appellant imtiaz Hussain son of Shamim Hussain through Mr.

Muhammad Jiwani, Advocate.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T. APPEAL NO.8O OF 2021

Appellant Nadeem Ahmed son of Mushtaq Ahmed through Mr. Muhammad Jiwani, Advocate.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussairu Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers. ,

Page 3 of 26

)oL 't,.?-

SPL. CR. A.T. APPEAL NO.81 OF 2021

L

Appellant Muhammad Amir @ Tutla son o{ Muhammad Moeen through Mr.

Muhammad Jiwani, Advocate.

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T. TAIL APPEAL NO.88 OF 2021

Appellant Ubaid @ K-2 son of Khursheed through Raja Rashid AIi, I Advocate,

Respondents The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Mr. Rana Khalid Hussain, Senior Public Prosecutor, Pakistan Rangers.

SPL. CR. A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.1O7 OF 2021

Appellant The State tluough Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Adtll. Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Faisal Mehmood @ Mota son of Mehmood Hussain.

SPL. CR. A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.1O8 OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Syed Nadir Shah son of Syed Munawar Shah.

Page 4 of 25

1o2

SPL. CR. A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.1O9 OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Syed Nadir Shah son of Syed Munawar Shah.

SPL. CR. A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.11O OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Shabbir Ahmed @ Farhan Mullah son of Dabeer Ahmed.

SPL, CR. A.T. ACQUITTAL APPEAL NO.111 OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr, Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl, Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Aamir Ali @ Sarphata S/o. Shaukat Ali.

SPL. CR. A,T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.112 0F 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awao Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Imtiaz Ahmed son of Shamim Ahmed.

SPL. CR, A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.113 OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awao Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respond ent Kazim Raza Rizvi son of SYed Nasir Raza.,

Page 5 of 26

v*

SPL. CR. A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.114 OF 2021

L Appellant The State tfuough Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Abdul Qadir son of Muhammad Hingoro.

SPL. CR, A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.115 OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Nadeem Ahmed son of Mushtaq Ahmed.

SPL. CR. A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO'1.16 OF 2021.

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Muhammad Javed son of Muhammad Ibrahim.

SPL. CR. A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO'117 OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Responclent Muhammad Aamir @ Totla son of Muhammad Moin.

SPL, CR. A.T, ACQUITTAL APPEAL NO.118 OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl' Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Muhammad Shakeel @ Banarsi son of Muhammad Haroon..

t

Page 6 of 25

n"1

SPL. CR. A. T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL N 0.119 0F 2021

Appellant The State tfuough Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Mehmood Hussain son of Muhammad Moazzarn.

SPL. CR. A.T. ACOUIT'IAL APPEAL NO.12O OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Muhammad Abid son of Nazir Ahmed.

SPL, CR. A.T. ACOUITTAL APPEAL NO.121 OF 2021

Appellant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent Ubaid @ K-2 son of Khursheed Ahmed.

CR. RIVISION APPLICATION NO.192 OF 2021

Applicant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Faisal Mehmood @ Mota son of Mehmood Hussain.

CR. RIVI SION APPLI oN NO.193 oF 2021 Applicant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Adctl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/Accused Shabbir Ahmed @ Farhan Mullah son of Dabeer Ahmed..

Page 7 of 26

2\o

CR. RIVISION APPLICA TION NO.194 0F 202r Applicant The State through Mr.

Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Aamir Ali @ Sarphata son of Shoukat Ali.

CR. R IVISION APPLICATION NO,195 OF 2021,

Applicant The State through Mr.

Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Imtiaz Ahmed son of Shamim Ahmed.

l

CR. RIVISION APPLI CATIO N NO.195 0F 2021

Applicant The State through Mr.

Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl, Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Kazirn Raza son of Nasir Raza.

CR. RIVISION APPLICATION NO.197 OF2027

Applicant The State through Mr.

Muhammad Iqbal Awan, ArJdl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Abdul Qadir son of Muhammad Hingoro.

t. CR. ION APPLICATI oN NO.198 0F 2021 Applicant The State through Mr.

Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh,

Respondent/ Accused Nadeem Ahmed son of Mushtaq Ahmed.,

Page 8 of 26

CR. RIVISION APPLICA TION NO.199 0F 2021

Applicant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awaru Adcll.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Muhammad Javed son of Muhammad Ibrahim.

CR. RIVISION APPLICATION NO.2OO OF 2021

Applicant The State through Mr Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Muhammad Aamir @ Totla son of Muhammad Moin.

f

CR, RIVISION APPLICATION NO.2O1 OF 2021

Applicant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor Ceneral Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Muhammad Shakeel @ Banarsi son of Muhammad Haroon.

CR. RIVISION APPLICATION NO.2O2 OF 2021

Applicant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Mehmood Hussain son of Muhammad Moazzam

t CR, RIVISION APPLICATION NO,2O3 OF 2021 Applicant The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused Muhammad Abid son of Nazir Ahmed.

I

Page 9 of 26

l}

CR. RIVISION APPLICATION NO.2O4 OF 2021

Applicant: The State through Mr.

Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl.

Prosecutor General Sindh.

Respondent/ Accused: Ubaid @ K-2 son of Khursheed Ahmed through Raja Rashid Ali, Advocate

Date of Hearing. 05.-12.2022.

Date of Announcement t2.12.2022

I UDGMENT

Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, f. Appellants namely (1) Fasial Mehmood @ Mota (2), Nadir Shah (3) Shabbir Ahmed @ Farhan Mulla (4) Aamir Ali @ Sarphata (5) Imtiaz Hussain (6) Syed Kazim Raza Rizvi (7) r Abdul Qadir (8) Nadeem Ahmed (9) Muhammad Javed (10) Muhammad Amir @ Totla (11) Muhammad Shakeel @ Banarsi (12) Mehmood Hassan (13) Muhammad Abid and (1a) Ubaid @ K-2 were charge sheeted to face their trial in Special Cases No.B-238 to B-238-AA of 2015 arising out of the FIRs No.52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 6L, 62, 63, 64 and 65 all of 2015 under section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, 1908 r/w Section of ATA, 1.997 and 230)(A) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 all registered at [€ Azizabatl, Karachi. All the appellants vide impugned judgment daled 23.04'2021 passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.XVI, Karachi were convicted and sentenced each of them u/s.265-H(2) Cr'PC as under:-

i)The accused Faisal Mehmood @ Mota s/o Mehmoocl Hussain was convicted for the offence u/s.23(I)(A) SAA 2013 and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for (10) ten years with fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and in case of failure to pay the fine, he was ordered to suffer SI for six (06) months more.

ii)The accused Muhammad Abid S/o Nazeer Ahmed ancl Ubaid @ K-2 S/ o. Khursheed were convicted for the oflence I u/s. 23(I)(A) whereas Shabbir Ahmed @ Farhan Mullah S/o Dabeer'Ahmed was convicted u/s. 23(l)(A) in the light of Section 32 of SAA, 2013 and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for (8) eight years with fine of Rs 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each and in case of failure to pav the iine, they were ordered to suffer SI for three (03) months more.

Page 10 of 26

1y

iii)All the accused Amir Ali @ Sarphata S/o Shoukat Ali, Muhammad Javed S/o Muhammad Ibrahim , Muhammad Amir @ Totla S/o Muhammad Moeery Mehmood Hassan S/o Muhammad Moazzam wete convicted for the offence u/s. 23(I)(A) whereas Imtiaz Hussain S,/o Shamim Ahmecl, Syed Kazim Raza Rizvi S/o Syed Nasir Raza, Abdul Qadir S/o Muhammad Hingoro, Nadeem Ahmed S/o Mushtaque Ahmed and Muhammad Shakeel @ Banarsi S/o Muhammad Haroon were also convicted for the offence u/s'23(I)(A) SAA 2013 in the light of Section 32 and sentenced each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for (06) six years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each and in case of failure to pay the fine, they were ordered to suffer SI for two (02) months more.

All the above named accused Persons were acquitted from the charge of offences punishable t/s.4/5 Explosive Substances Act by extending benefit of doubt. Benefit of Section 382-8 Cr. P.C. was also extended in favour of all the convicted accused,

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.03 2015 I Inspector Muhammad Latif of Pakistan Rangers Wing-73 received inlormation about presence of absconding accused Faisal Mota along with other accused in Khursheed Memorial Hall, Block-O8, FB, Area, Karachi (9 Zero). On such information on 11.03.2015 at about 0530 hours the inspector along with staff raided the place and found 14 armed Persons' The rangers arrested an accused who disclosed his name as Faisal Mehmood @ Mota and recovered from his possession one 9mm pistol loaded with rounds in magazine and one Avon bomb, he also disclosed about concealing of weapons, arms and ammunitions etc. and led the raiding party to the hall and pointed out four bags of weapons, arms and ammunition and one bag containing roundt which were oPened and found 07 rifle G22,19 rifle 7mm, 18 SMG, 02 ifte )27 t 22 repeater 13-bore, 02 1lfle 223, 11 rifle GSAS, 07 rifle 22, 14 pistol 30-bore, 02 pistol 9mm ammunition 6000 rounds of 9mm, 800 rounds 7.62, 800 rounds of C3, 1000 rounds of 22 borc,2000 rounds of 12 bore,S0 rounds of 7mm, 100 rounds of 30 bore, 2500 rounds of M4, 300 rounds of 303 bore' The raiding Party also recovered from accused Nadir Shah one 9mm pistol without 5 rounds and one Avon bomb, from accused Shabbir Ahmed @ Farhan Mullah one G3 rifle with five rounds and one Avon bomb, Amir Ali @ Sarphata one LMG with 40 rounds and Avon bomb. Imtiaz Ahmed G3 rifle without ten rounds and Avon bomb, Kazim one G3 rifle without ten rounds and Avon bomb, Abdul Qadir one G3 rifle with ten lounds and Avon bomb' Nadeem Ahmed one G3 rifle with ten rounds and Avon bomb, Javed t Page ll of26

l ttt

8mm rifle and Avon bomb, Muhammad Amir Khan 8mm rifle and Avon bomb, Shakeel @ Banarsi 8mm rifle and Avon bomb. Mehmood-ul-Hassan a 8mm rifle and Avon bomb, Muhammad Abid one SMG with 20 rounds and Avon bomb and {rom accused Ubaid @ K-2 the raiding party recovered one LMG with 40 rounds and Avon bomb, hence FIR's were lodged against each of the accused separately'

3.After regishation of the FIR's investigation was assigned to five Inspectors namely Changaiz Kharu Arshad HussairL Javed Ahmed Yousuf Zai, Ather Ahmed and Akhtar Javed who after usual investigation submitted Challan before the Hon ble Administrative Judge Anti- Terrorism Courts, Karachi.

4.The accused plead not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The I prosecution in order to prove its case examined 10 witnesses and exhibited various documents and other items' The statement of accused were recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C in which they denied the allegations leveled against themselves and claimed false implication by the police at the behest of Pakistan rangers. The accused all gave evidence on oath and called 1.1 DW's between them in support of their defence case

5.After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as set out earlier in this judgment; hence, the appellants have filed this appeal against their convictions. It is to be observed that one oI the accused Nadir was acquitted oI all charges whilst the appellants were convicted of the charges under the Sindh Arms Act 201.3 but were all acquitted in respect of the charge under the Explosive Substances Act 1908 for which the State has filed appeals against acquittal in resPect of all the appellants/respondents including Nadir and the State has also filed applications for enhancement of sentences of all the convicted appellants under the SAA 2013 in the event that this court dismisses there appeals

I

against conviction. By this common judgment we shall decide the appeals against conviction, the enhancement applications, if necessary, and also determine whether the appeals against acquittal warlant admission to regular hearing.,

Page L2 of 26

6.The facts of the case as well as evidence Produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary rePetition.

Turning firstly to the appeals against conviction.

7.Leamed counsel for the appellants have contended that the appellants are all innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the police at the behest of the rangers due to their affiliation with the political party known as the MQM; that the motive for the raid was false as no case was outstanding against any of the MQM members said to be present at 9 Zero; that only two of the appellants were actually Present at g Zerc at the time of the raid by the rangers whilst the others were either arrested from their houses or else where and falsely implicated in this case; that there were maior contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as such there evidence could not be safely relied upory that the weaPons allegedly recovered from the accused had been foisted on them; that there was not a stock pile of arms and ammunition at9 Zero which had all been foisted on the appellants; that 5.103 Cr.PC had not been complied with; that the joint mashirnama was inadmissible under the Iaw in respect of the recovered weapons and bombs; that no safe custody of the recovered weapons had been proven; that the video clip which was admissible in evidence showed that a number of the appellants were unarmed at the time of their arrest by the rangers; that if on the same set of evidence the appellants were acquitted in respect of the offence under the Explosive Substances Act 1908 they should also be acquitted for the offences under the SAA and that for anv or all of the above reasons the appellants should be acquitted of the charge by being extended the benefit of the doubt. In support of their contentions' they placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Pervaiz v' The State and T other (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 592), Ghulam Hussain and others v' The State and others (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 61) Ali Gohar and others v' Pervaiz Ahmed and others (PLD 2020 Supreme Cot';l.t 427)' Owais and another v. The State (2022P C:.LJ 920),Eazal Hussain alias Faqeera and others v, The State (2020 P Cr'LJ 311), Muhammad Umair alias Bhutto v' The State (2018 MLD 1196), Waris Ali and 5 others v' The State (2017, Page 13 ol26

1rt

SCMR 1572), Manzoor Elahi v' The State (2018 YLR Note 190), Anwar Hussain and 2 others v. The State (2019 YLR 1117), Notice to Police ..t

Constable Khizar Hayat son of Hadaitullah on account of his false statement in the matter of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No'200 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No.238'L of 2O13 (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 527), Lqeel Ahmed alias Tiloo v. The State (2018 P Cr.LJ Note 12), Faheem Ali v. The State (2019 MLD 468) and Mano v' The State (2022

YLR 396).

8.On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh assisted by Special Prosecutors Rangers has contended that the evidence of the witnesses who made the arrest and recovery from the appellants at 9 Zero was trust worthy conJidence inspiring and could be safely relied upon; that the appellants were caught red handed duting the raid on 9 Zerc by the rangers with unlicensed firearms; that although the video r evidence was inadmissible which the defence wanted to rely on even if it was admitted into evidence it supported the prosecution case of the presence of a number of the accused at the time o( the raid and thus the prosecution had ploved its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and as such the impugned judgment should be upheld and the appeals be dismissed. In suPPot of his contentions, he placed reliance on the cases of Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza and 2 others v' Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 675), Liaquat Ali and another v. The State (2022 SCMR 1097),Fazal Akbar v. The State through A,A.G. and anoth$ (2013 P Cr.LJ 369), Hameer v. The State (2003 P Cr'LJ 1452), Mir Muhammad v. The State (1995 SCMR 614) and Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State (2020 SCMR 853).

9.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and leamed Additional Prosecutor General Sindh assisted by special prosecutors rangers and gone through the entire evidence which has been read out by the leamed counsel for the appellant, and the t impugned iudgment with their able assistance and have considered the relevant law including the case law cited at the bar'

10.After our reassessment of the evidence we find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the charge for which the appellants were convicted keeping in view that each criminal case must be t M'lsnwna,t Pagc 14 of 26

decided on its own particular facts and circumstances for the following reasons;

(a)That the GEO rePorter Wali Babar had been gunned down allegedly by appellant Faisal Mota and his accomplices for which ur, FIR *u" outstanding and the rangers had received intelligence that appellant Faisal Mota and some of his accomplices were armed and *ere present in 9 Zero. As such the rangers quickly put together a heavy raiding party consisting of 150 heavilv armecl raigers to arrest Faisal Mehmood aka Mota at 9 Zerc' Hence the rai.1- was motivated to caPture Faisal Mehmood aka Mota and his accomplices and not based on any malafide'

(b)That the FIR was lodged with promptitude within 5 hours of the incident with the slight delay being explained by thc time it took to cordon off the area, carry out the raid, arrest and recover the huge quantity of arms and ammunition at 9 Zero including counting the same and preparing the mashirnama of arrest and recovery and stopping olf ut .rttg". HQ to secure the accused and the case pr"p".ty before proceeding to I€Azizabad to lodge the FIR's So

I

Lr"n u.ry slight delay has been explained and as such the slight delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the Prosecution case which gu.r" .o time for the rangers and the police to cook up a false iarrative against the appellants. In this respect reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi v' The State (2011 scMR 872).

(c)That PW 1 Muhammed LatiJ who headed the rangers raiding party gave evidence that when he raided 9 Zero the area was io.dott"d off and as such no member of the public could be associated with the arrest and recovery and as such he used PW 2 Fazal Rabi a fellow ranger to act as mashir' According to his evidence when he reached 9 Zero 14 Persons were standing inside whom he apprehended each of whom had a firearm of some specified sort and a bomb on them. He arrested the appellants including acquitted accused Nadir and prepared the memo of arrest an-d t".or"ry which was signed by Mashir PW 2 Fazal Rabbi About 35 heavily armed rangets entered 9 Zero so quite logically it was pointless ior the appellants to Put up resistance who all surrendered. Appellant Faisal Mehmood aka Mota then took PW 1 to a room wheie on his pointation a large cache of arms and ammunition was placed in about 6 bags which were also recovered under same memo of recovery. Such large cache of arms and ammunition seems to have been kept at 9 Zero as according to numerous DW's 9 Zeto was fearful of being attacked and as such ) its occupants needed to be ready to defend themselves PW 1 Muhammed Latif then lett 9 Zerc with the arrested appellants and the recovered arms and ammunition and droPPed the appellants and the tecovered arms off at Rangers HQ before proceeding to 15 Azizabadwhere he lodged numerous FIRs against each appellant in respect of the incident the main FIR being 52/2075 with thc other FIR's being by reference to it. Quite sensibly he did not bring the appellants and the case proPerty to the frs for security reasons since tensions were running high in the area following the raid on the Page 15 of 26

2 \g

HQ of the MQM in Karachi. PW L Muhammed Latif who was the complainant in the case had no ill will or enmity with any of the I accuied and as such had no reason to implicate them in a faise case' His FIR was lodged with promptitude and no material improvements have been made in his evidence and his FIR He gave his evidence in a straightforward, nafural manner and was not dented despite a lengthy cross examination by numerous defence' counsel. He was corroborated in all material respects by PW 2 Fazal Rabbi who was the mashir of the arrest and recovery and to whom the same considerations apply especially as his 5'161 Cr'PC statement was recorded PromPtly and mo material improvements have been named in his evidence and as such we find his evidence to be reliable, confidence inspiring and trustworthy and we believe the same. The same considerations apply to PW 2 Fazal Rabbi'

(d)That the appellants were therefore all caught red handed on the spot with firearms for which they had no licenses and were arrested and named in the FIR's.

( e) That the FIR's were divided uP amongst seParate- IO's PlV !1 Ather Ahmed, PW 5 Akthar Javed, PW 7 Jawed' Ahmed Yousafzai, ( PW 8 Arshad Hussian and PW 10 Chagez Ali Khan who all according to their evidence recovered the appellants in their FIR's and relevant case proPerty from the Rangers HQ, inspected the wardat. recorded the 5.161 Cr.PC statements on the same day Then sent recoveries for FSL which Produced Positive reports regarding the recovered weapons being in working order' No ill will or enmity has been suggested against any of them by anv of the appeliants and as such they had no reason to falsely implicate an1' o? ihe appellants. They gave their evidence in a straightforward, natural manner and were not dented despite a lengthY cross examination by numerous defence counsel and as such we find their evidence to be reliable, conJidence inspiring and ftustworth-v and we believe the same' We also find that safe custody of the recovered weaPons has also been proven' PW 6 Saleem Siddiqui who was duty officer at the time at f'S Azizabad who recorded the FIR's of the complainant also corroborates their evidence That since it has not been proven through evidence that any of the police PW's who gave evidence had any enmity or ill will towards the appellants and had no reason to falsely implicate them in this case fo. instar,ce by planting weaPons on any of the appellants in such circumstances if has been held that the evidence of the police PW's can be fully relied uPon and as such we rely on the police evidence' In this respect reliance is placed on the case of Mushtaq Ahmed v' The State (2020 SCMR 474).

t (f) That all the PW's are consistent in their evidence and even if ih"." *" some contradictions in their evidence we consider these contradictions as minor in nature and not material and certainly not of such materiality so as to effect the Prosecution case and the conviction of the appellants. In this respect reliance is placed on the cases of Zakir Khin v. State (1995 SCMR 1793) and Khadim Hussain v. The State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 669) The evidence of the PW's provides a believable corroborated unbroken chain of events from ih" ti-" the rangers received intelligence information t Page 16 of 26

I

about the presence of Faisal Mehmood aka Mota at 9 Zero who was wanted in the Wali Khan murder case to putting together a raiding + party to raid 9 Zero to the actual raid itself to the arrest and ie.ou"ry of the appellants (including Faisal Mehmood aka Mota) armed with pistols and other rifles and weapons to a positive FSL report stating that such weaponry was in working order'

(g)The fact that 5.103 Cr.PC was not comPlied with based on the pirticular facts and circumstances of this case and the other ivailable evidence on record we do not give much signilicance to as it has now virtually been iudicially recognized that in such type of criminal cases now a days due to general aPathy in the public and fear of reprisals independent people are not willing to act as mashirs and unnecessarily embroil themselves in the legal process which may have repercussions on both them and their family ln this respect reliance is placed on the cases of Salah-uddin v' The State (2010 SCMR 1962) and lbrarullah v. State (2021 SCMR 128)

(h)With regard to the video of the news report by ARY news as attempted to be authenticated by DW 11' Alzal Pervaiz even if this video of Mubashir Luqman is held to be admissible as urged by thc '{ defence in our view it actually goes against the defence case as it shows the presence of a number of the accused who claim to be else where at ih" tirnu of the incident and negates there defence, for example, Faisal Mehmood aka Mota. Even if the video does not show the accused as being armed this is of little consequence as there is no time stamp on the recording and the incident went on for a number of hours and as such the accused may well have been disarmed before this news rePort. The video only seems to benefit the acquitted Nadir and none other of the appellants.

(i)That the fact that the appellants were acquitted in the associatecl case under the Explosive Substances Act 1908 we find to be of no relevance as such weaPons (bombs) could not be used without a launcher which was not recovered al 9 Zeto and as such were useless as weaPons. It is noted that appellant Nadir was acquitted in the Arms case as he produced much more evidence in his defence in terms of his apparent arest from his house in the viclect and the evidence of his wife and as such his case was on a different footing to the other co-accused who were convicted in the Arms case.

joint mashimama of arrest O That there is no illegality is having a ind recovery based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case where ill the accused are arrested at the same time and place antl all the recoveries are made from them at the same time and l' place as part of the same transaction as in this case. In this respect ieliance is placed on the case of Akbar v' The State (2017 YLR Note

(k)Undoubtedly it is for the prosecution to Prove its case against il,e accused beyond a reasonable doubt but we have also considered the defence case to see if it at a1l can caste doubt on or dent the prosecution case. The defence case is simPly one of false implication by the police at the behest of the rangers on account ol f PaEe 17 of 26

azo

political reasons. Although the appellants all gave evidence on oath lnd called 11 DW's we find that most of the DW's were relatives + who made no report of any illegal arrest until the time when the prosecution case was over. That none of the DW's who claimed to hurr" u firearms license for a weaPon which was allegedly recovered from 9 Zero and/or allegedly foisted on a particular appellant had a valid license as they had all expired, there was no that any of the appellants had written permission to have ".rid"t."

their firearm as a retainer and even othentrise there logic of keeping a firearm in9 Zero for protection does not stack up as what good is a firearm for protection when it is left in a building which you are absent from? Even if the MQM was fearful of an attack on its premises this does not justify stockpiling such a large quantitv oI Lnlicensed arms and ammunition at its HQ's. In such a scenario the police should be called to deal with the situation. Thus, for the ieasons mentioned above we disbelieve the defence case as an afterthought in the face of reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring prosecution evidence which has not at all dented the prot".t.rtio., case. As was correctly found ,in- the - impugned iudgment at Para 55 which is reproduced below for ease of reference;

t' "55. Ercn the perusal of aboae list only 62 weapons/arms matcheil tttith the claim of DW Muhammail Earcoq Sattar wheteas rest o/ the u)eapott rccoaered from Khursheed Memorial Hall arc iltegat anit illicit as has also been shown in the CD utith commeatary that sofie weapotls were of US Naay and of Tliban, lrcnce the defence plen of tlrc accused is not comprelunsitte tnrl is only nccepted to tlu e ent of ztenfied zoeapons from tltt Ministry oJ Interior, t'lrcrens total toeapons recoaered from exclusitte possession of eadt acuLsed is nntl .from Khursheed Memoial Hall numhet of Arnrs is 98; totnl numbet of nnns seated/recottered is 112"(bold adcled)

11.Based on the above discussion we have no doubt that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt for the offences for which they have been convicted antl sentenced and hereby uphold the impugned judgment and dismiss the all

the appeals.

t, Turning to the Enhancement of sentences of the appellants'

72.In the case of Abdul Malik and others v' The State and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 365) the court laid down the following principles governing the enhancement of sentence', Page 18 of 26

1L\

"To say tlnt an appellate or raisional Colftt cnflnot A enlwnce the sentence of a cotruict zoho duing the pendency of tfu appeal or ratision, as tlte case may he, has unrlergonc the sentence unfur challenge is to negate the mnndntory proztisions relating to tla poruers of tle appellate Court under sections 42i, 427 of Cr.P.C. and of tlw reuisional Court under sections 435 and 439 of the same Code. Undet these prooisions, the coacerneil Court, seizeil of the appeal u rc.uision, has the power to annul, to teduce or to enhance the sentence.

The question of sentence is pimaily a matter of juilicial iliscretion to be exetcised in the first instance by the Trial Court. Tlrc Court of appeal cnn enhance tlre sentence if tlu satne is fowtd to be inadtquate or not in accord roith judicial pinciples hid dorun by supeior Courts in this regard. But it u'ill depencl on circurustancas of that case nnd it tooukl be urulesirable to lny a principle of general application.

Y

There are four broail principle{guidelines in this regard uthete the Coutt coulil intetfere and enhaace the sentence. Those are as under:'

(i)Wwe the sentence ruas not iustified by Inu.

(ii)Were a perlon zpas sentenced uryn fl 7.T ofl9 fachtal bnsis.

(iii)Matters improperly taken into consideration or fresh natters to be takcn into nccount.

(ia)The sentence manifestly is excessitse or ll)roflg in principle.

These are mere guiilelines anil their application would ilepenit on each case. The cases entailing capittrl chuge are to be decided tttith, utntost care. Wren lntp z'ests a rliscretion in Courts to autnrd sentence of death or life imprisonment, it casts a heauy duty to balance tlrc rniotrs corrsiderations tohich undetlie these xntencing prot'isiotts' The circumstances surtouniling the offence, the I question of mens rca, tlre prtnciPle of ptoportionality of sentence, of the Srdaity o/ the offence chargeil, the consiilerations of preoentiott or of iletenence anil of rchabilitation may also be kept in oiew if the citcu,rrstances 0f the cases an(l the law applicable so zoarrarlt.

There is no rule of general application thnt the senting out of sentence rluing the pendency of appeal or

I

Page 19 of 26

rerision, by itself, toould constitute a bar for enhancement of sentence or thnt any exercise to that effect toould Lte uiolatiue of Article 13 of tlu Constitution. This could be one factor toltich tlw Court fiay consideL along toith other fnctors and tfu pinciptes while tleciding the question of e nhnn c emen t.(bo1d added)

13.In the later case of Muhammad Juman v' The state and others (2018 SCMR 318) it was emphasized that sentencing was not a mechanical exercise in the following term's;

"Inflicting conuiction anil imposing senteflce is not a mechanical exercise but it is onetous rcsponsibility to inflict, fair, leasonable anil ailequate sentence, cornfleflsutate ttith graoity anil or seuerity o/ cime, looking at the motizte, atteniling and or mitigating circumstances that protroked or instigated cot trnission of crine anil it iaaoloes conscious { application of minil. No mathematical formula, standaril or yard stick coulil be prescribed or set out to inflict cofiaiction anil sentence, such factots aary from case to case nnd zohile undertnking such etercisc Coufi uust keep in sight prooisions conta:tned irt Chapters- III nnd lV of the P.P.C. Unfortutntely, no setrtent:ittg guidtlhrc is lnitl dou,n in Pakistan, though Courts hwe set out certain paranrcters in many cases as to trtlttt is nitigating and or aggrat'ating citcumstances that nny zttarrant nlterntion anrl or onrying in conttiction and or selttence ruithin tle parafieters of ptwirled under tlrc charging or penal proaision" .(bold added)

1.4. In the case in hand the appellants have been convicted u/s 23 (a) (i) of the SAA for having in their possession unlicensed firearms The sentencing range for such offence is uP to 14 years imprisonment' The State wants all the sentences of the appellants enhanced to the maximum of 14 years as the prosecution has proved its case against all the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt' It is however but logical that the maximum F sentence of 14 years imprisonment would be reserved for the most grievous of cases where no mitigating factors existed at all' In fact we are au/are that even when an accused is convicted for offences under 5.353/924/34 PPC and SAA 2013 following a police encounter where a police man even suffers iniuries on account of the discharge of the unlicensed firearm which is recovered from the aPPellant at the time of that the arrest rarely does the sentence go beyond 7 to 10 years Provided

I

M'hn,nnan Page 20 of 26 ^rif

the o{fence does not fall under the ATA. In this case the firearms were recovered from each of the accused without any firing actually being t made on any party as the accused surrendered and as such we find that the maximum sentence cannot be justified based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case. The appellants have been sentenced respectively to periods of 10,8 and 6 years and the trial court has given full reasoning for the quantum of sentence handed down to each accused and why there has been a differentiation in sentences between some of the appellante which is set out below for ease of reference n'hich we find no exception can be taken to and as such the revision applications for enhancement of the appellant's sentences are all dismissed and the sentences handed down to each of the appellants in the impugned iudgment are maintained.

OUANTUM OF SENTENCE

78.Quantunt of tlw sentence is notmally the discretion of court based on judicial reasoning keeping in pietLt the facts nnd ciratmstances of the case (referctce 2075 SCMR 735). Since the proserution has ptot;ed the case oJ recoaeries of arms and ammunition but case in lwtd lus created mitigating circumstances as discussed nbute, qet cases o/ abote nameil accusetl arc on differcnt footings, hence they are sentenced ilifferently accoriling to three categories of accuseil The maitr accused first category is Eaisal from tohom illegal Trjenpon ?t fls retm,ered antl on his pointation ltuge nnns and ammunitlon u,ere recooered; the rczospnper at Ex-39/B I C and filerl tlith statenletxt by learned counsel Mr' Molnntmnrl Jitoani confirm that ht ruas nnested frotn placr: of incident; CDs produced duing eaidence so dso fled rittith statenent of tlu leameti cowtsel Mr, Mushtaqtre Ahmed also confitms that ncoued Faisal is anested ftortt Khursfued Memoial Hall; his luitten statetflent fled by counsel o.f nccused confrms his nrtest from Khursheed Mennitll Hnll, Seconil category accused Slnhbir Almrcd @ Farlnn nnd acrrtsed Muhammad Abid hntte also I adfiitted in their statements that tluy uete arrested ltom Khursheerl Memorial Hnll, llbnid K2 falling in secottd category of acc.used despite his denial of arrest frorn Khirsheetl Memorial Hall yet the same is prot'ed front defence t,ersion i.e. nerospapers and CD that he utas anested fron Khursheed Memoial Hall nnd tlure comes thiril category of accuseil ruho lwt'e denied theit anest neuspflpers nre also from tle ptace of incident, the CD antl

Page 2\ of 26

a

silent b their arrest from Khursheetl Memoial Hnl.l is proue d br1 prose cufion.(bold added) f

79.Tlu sequel of tlrc discussion, tlw fintlings ott point No.3 to 16, I cotne to tlt conclusion that prosecution hns prouetl its cnses ftgainst the accused beyonrl any rensonable slwdoto of rlonbt, I tlrcrefore, contict aruL sentence tlrem u/s 265-H(2) Cr.P.C. as uruler:-

ia) The accused Faisal Mehmood @ Mota s/o Mehmood Hussain is heteby conaicted for tht offence u/s.23(l)(A) SAA 2013 anil sentenced him to suffer simple impisonmeat fot (70) tefl years uith fne of Rs.50,000y' (Rupees Frfly Thousand) and in case of failure to pay the fne, he shall suffer Sl for six (06) months more.

p) The accused Muhammad Abid S/o Nazeer Ahrued llhaid @ K'2 S/o Khursheed are hereby conaicted for the offence u/s. 23(I)(A) whereas Shabbir Ahmed @ Farhan Mullah S/o Dabeer Ahmed is conuicted uk. 23(I)(A) in the light of Section 32 I of SAA, 2013 anil seflteflce then to suffer simple imprtsornnerrt for eight $) Eight years uith fne of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each and in case of failure to pay the fne, he shall suffer Sl for three (0i) months ,nore.

ai) All the accused Amir Ali @ Sarphata S/o Shoukat Ali, Muhammad laoed S/o Muhammad lbrahim , Muhammatl Amir @ Totla S/o Muhammad Moeen, Mehmood Hassan S/o Muhammad Monzzam are hereby conoicted for the offence u/s. 23(l)(A) whseas lmtiaz Hussazin S/o Shamim Ahmed, Syed Kazim Raza Rizai S/o Syed Nasir Raza, Abilul Qadir S/o Muhammad Iiingoro, Nadeem Ahmed S/o Mushtaque Ahmed and Muhlmmad Shakeel @ Banarsi S/o Muhammad Haroon are conuicted for tlu offence u/s'23(l)(A) SAA 2013 in the liSht of Section 32 flnd sefltenceil each of then to sufrer simple impisonmant for (06) Six yeats with fine of Rs.L0,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each and in case of failure to pay thc fne, he shall suffer SI for fioo (02) months more' l.

Turning to the Appeals against Acquittal.

15, As a matter of law the parameters for an appeal against acquittal to succeed are much narrower than in the case of an appeal against conviction. It is settled law that judgment of acquittal should not be interjected until fndings are peraerse, arbitrary, foolish, artifcial, specuLntirte Page 22 of 26

, '1a>

and idiculous as held by the Honorable Supteme Court in the case of The State v. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 201i Supreme Court 554)' i Moreover, the scoPe of interference in appeal against acquittal is narrow and limited because in an acquittal the presumption of the innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal iurisprudence as the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved goilty ' ln other tuortls, the presumPtion of innocence is doubled as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above referred judgment' The relevant para is reproduced hereunderi

"L6.We hate heard this case at a considerable length stretching on quite a number of dntes, and toith the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, haxe thoroughly scanned eaery mateial piece of ertidence ataihbLe on the rccord; an exercise pimaily necessitated toith reference to tlrc conaiction appeal, and also to ascertain if the conclusions of tlu Courts belotLt are against the eoidence on the record and/or in aiolation of the lmt. In nny eaent, beforc embarking upon scrutiny of the oarious pleas of lazo I nnrl fact raised lrom both the sides, it may be mentioned that both tle learned counsel ngreed that the citeia of interfercnce in the judgment against acquittal is not the same, as against cases inrollJing a conttiction. In this behalf, it shnll be releoant to mention that the following precedents prouide a fair, settled. and consistent rtieut of the suPeiot Cnurts about the rules u,hich shoutd be follorued in such cases; the dicta are:

Bashir Ahmeit a. Fida Hussain anil 3 others Q010 SCMR 495), Noot Mali Khan a, Mir Shah I ehan anil another (2005 PCr.Ll 352), Imtiaz Asail a. Zain-ul-Abiitin anil another (2005 PCT.LI i93), Rashicl Ahmed o. Muhammail Nawaz and othets (2006 SCMR 1-152), Barkat Ali o. Shaukat Ali anil others (2004 SCMR 249), Mulazim Hussain o. The State anil anothet (20L0 PCT.LI 926), Muhammad Taszoeer o. Hafiz Zulkatnain anil 02 others (PLD 2009 SC 53), Farhat Azeem a. Asn at llllah anil 6 others (2008 SCMR 1285), Rehmat Shah anil 2 others a. Amit Gul anil 3 otherc (1995 SCMR L39), The State a. Muhammail Shartf anil 3 others (L995 SCMR 635), Ayaz Ahmeil anil anothet a, Dr. Nazir Ahmeil anil anothet (2003 PCr. LJ 1935), Muhammail Aslam a. Muhammail Zafat and 2 others (PLD 1gg2 SC 1), Allah Bakhsh and another o, Ghulam Rasool and 4 others (L999 SCMR 223), Najal Saleem zt. Laily Dr' Tasneem and others (2004 yLR 407), Agha'Wazit Abbas anil otherc a' The State I and others (2005 SCMR 1'175), Mukhtar Ahmed o. The State (1991 SCMR 2311), Rahimutlah lan a, KashiJ anil anothet (PLD 2008 SC 298), Khan o. Saijad aail 2 others (2004 SCMR 215), Shafique Ahmad a, Muhammqd Rnfizafl uflil aflother (1995 SCMR 855)' The State a. Abilul Ghalfar (1996 SCMR 678) and Mst. Saira Bibi ?' Muhammad Asi! anil others (2009 SCMR 946).

t

Page 23 of 26

4 Z,b

I

From tht ratio of all the aboae protlouncements and those cited by the Leamed counsel for the parties, it can be deduced that the scope of f interference in appeal against acquittal is most narrou nnd limited, because in an acquittal the presumption of innocence is signifcantly added to the cardinal rule of ciminal juisprudence, that an accused shnll be presumed to be innocent is doubted- The coutts shall be uery sloztt in intetfering zoith such at acquittal iuilgment, utless it is shototr to be peraerse, passeil in gross aiolation oJ lau, suffeing /ton the errorc ol graoe misreailing or non'rcailing o/ the eaidence; such jrdgments shoulil not be lightly interfeteil anil heaoy burilen lies ott the prosecution to rebut the presumptiofl of infioceflce u:hich the accuseil has earneil anil attaineil on account of his acquittaL It has been categoricatly helil in a plethora of iuilgments that interference in a judgment o! acquittal is tate anil the Prcsecutiott must shotLt that there are glaring enots of law anil fact committeil bq the Court in atioittg at the ilecisiorr, which woulil rcsult into graae miscarriage ol justice; the acquittal iuilgment is petfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion has beea drazon' Moreoztel in number of itictums ol this Court, it has been I categorically laiil down that such iuilgment should not be interjecteil until the finilings rre Pefltene, atbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculatioe anil idiculons (Emphasis supplied)' The Court o/ appeal shoulil not interferc simply fot the rcason that on the re-appraisat of the euiileflce a different conclllsion could possibly be arritteil at, the factual conclusions shoulil not be upset, except zohen palpably peruetse, suffertng from seious anil matetial factual infirmities. lt is aoened in The State a. Muhammnd Shori.l' (1995 SCMR 635) and Muhammad ljaz Ahmad a. Raia Fahim Afzal and 2 others (1-998 SCMR 1251) that the Supreme Court being the final forum ruould be chary and hesitant to interfere in the findings of the Courts belou. lt is, thetefore, exPeilient anil impetatioe that the aboae criteria and the guiilelines shoulil be follozoed in deciding these appeals." @old added)

76.In the instant case the apPellants have been acquitted of the charge under the Explosive Substances Act 1908 for the following reasons at para's 62 and 63 of the impugned iudgment as set out below;

62.As far as the prosecution regnrdittg recorery ,'. of riJle grenade from accused is concerned one single question nises ns to lltlty accused tt'ould carry ifle-grenades zohich cannot etVlodt urithout its iJle as per admitted eaideflce of BDLJ ns Ex-14. On this scorc only, beneftt of doubt cantot he tnl(en awny t'rom rcctrced ruho nre othenoise entitled for the same not ns fl fiatter of grace btt ds il matter of i|ht.

Page 24 of 26

l

63.Moreotter, tle memo of recoaery nt Ex-10/A does not descibe any identity nnrks of tla ifle grennde I recouered from accused ruhereas the clearnnce cetti.ficnte and fnal reports mentioned the desciption. Tht BD teanr Ins etantinerl the riJle grenade ofi the next dny i.e the delay of one day, BD uas examined duing tial at Ex-12 as PW- 03 Masnb Hussnin duing cross hts ntlmitted " riJ7e grcnade are not defuserl and iJle grenade nre fnctory ftted'

I

Rifle grennde fires Jrom tocket lnunchers. lraztc only exnminetl ifle grenade nnd did' not exanine any rille " lt has come tluring eaidence that no iJleflattnclrcr toos collectetl/recotered either from accused or front Nirr Zero/Khursheed Memoinl Hall, tlw place of inciLlent, docs not attnct tlw prutlent mind to belieae thnt ri.fle grenaLlt toortld he kept by each ncased for utilizing tle sone toithout any ifleflnuncher. Despite recotery of luge arms and nmrnunition no any eaTlosiue is alleged to hnte hacn recouered from Nine Zero, no othet riJle grenade is recoz,eretl from Khursheed Memoial Hall. Tlu CD containing Khara Snch progrofi and netuspaPers I containing DAl4 / NEWS dated 12.03.2015 does not mention any explosiae recoaered f'rom Khursheed Memorinl Hall, lrcnce the case of recoaery of nfle grennde fron enclt acursctl is not prorcd beyond shadoto of doubt, the reference nny be madt to 2078 P Cr.Ll Note U6 (Sindh) Pl'-b, 2078 MLD 835, 2018 I',LR 760, 2078 vI'R 661, 2078

MOLD 776'

17.We find that it is quite natural during a raid for suspects to grab any firearm which was available and in fact the appellants had recovered from them assorted firearms ranglng from pistols to SMG's to G3 Rifles to LMG's however it does not particularly aPPeal to logic, reason or corrunonsense that each and every one of the appellants would have a bomb which was useless without a launcher esPecially when no launcher was recovered from 9 Zero during the raid. Leamed counsel for the state has not been able to Point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment as to bring it within the purview of an appeal against acquittal being admitted to regular hearing 1et alone being successful keeping in view the televant law and as such all the appeals against acquittal are ! dismissed in lime.

Conclusion.

1.All the appeals against conviction are dismissed' 2. All criminal revision applications for Enhancement of sentence are dismissed and the sentences handed down to each appellant in the impugned judgment are maintained .

Muht tdttAq Page 23 o126

) q2,

3.All the appeals against acquittal are dismissed in limine ? 18. The appeals against conviction, the criminal revision applications for enhancement of sentences and appeals against acquittal are all disposed of in the above terms.

JU

'pl,rl rz

IUD GE

I

i.

Page 26 of 26