Israr Khan Vs The State etc.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Criminal Appeal No.3372 of 2025

(Israr Khan v. The State)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing 24.09.2026 Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Sher Gul Qureshi, Advocate. State by: Rana Muhammad Shafique, D.P.G.

Khalid Ibn-i-Aziz, J:- Israr Khan (appellant) was tried by learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, in a case FIR No.39, dated 14.08.2023, under sections 11-F (2), 11-H, 11-I, 11-J, 11-N of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station CTD, Gujranwala, whereby, vide impugned judgment dated 17.12.2024, he was convicted and sentenced as under: -

(i)Imprisonment for 07 Years (R.I) U/S 11-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 punishable u/s 11-N of Act ibid alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo for one or month S.I.

(ii)Imprisonment for 07 Years (R.I) U/S 11-1 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 punishable u/s 11-N of Act ibid alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo for one month

S.I.

(iii)Imprisonment for 07 Years (R.I) U/S 11-J of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 punishable u/s 11-N of Act ibid along with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo for one month

S.I.

(iv)Imprisonment for 04 Months (R.I) U/S 11-F(2) of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo for 15 days S.I.

All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Convict shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

Aggrieved by his convictions and sentences, Israr Khan (appellant) filed instant criminal appeal.

2.The facts of the case as given in paragraph No.2 of the impugned judgment reads as under:- “The prosecution case as set out in complaint Ex. PC is that on 14.08.2023, at about 1:30 PM, complainant Syed Auon Muhammad 262 Corporal being Team Incharge along with Saddam Hussain 224, Muhammad Zeeshan 1292, Imran Sohail 218, Amir Shahzad 1335 Corporals all equipped with pistols 9mm with 15 live rounds each, on official vehicle, bearing registration No.LEG-1223 driven by Mansoor Subhani 326/DC, was present at Phalia Bherowal Road near Ali Gate and Shattering House, District Mandi Bahaudin, in connection with detection of members of proscribed organizations where source passed on information to him through WhatsApp call that one person belonging to banned organization "Tehrek-e-Taliban Pakistan", was present near Duggal Chowk Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahaudin and he was collecting funds for his organization for promotion of his organization and if immediate raid is conducted, he could be apprehended whereupon complainant after constituting raiding party reached there at about 1:40 P.M. On the pointing of source, complainant apprehended said unknown person who disclosed his name as Israr Khan son of Sher Bahadar, case Davaizi, R/o Ayupi Korr, Post Office Yakka Gand, Tehsil Pindiyali, District Mahmand Agency presently residing at Barkat Town, Lahore. Complainant conducted his personal search and recovered one receipt chanda book titled as "Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan", from which five receipts of different amounts starting from serial No.201

to 205 with blue ball point, Chanda amount Rs.12000/-, his original CNIC, cash amount of Rs.3300/-, stickers of banned organization "TTP" having narration of slogans. Complainant prepared sealed parcels of abovementioned recovered articles with stamp of CTD and took into possession through recovery memo.

Complainant drafted complaint (Ex. PC) and sent it through Imran Sohail Corporal to Police Station CTD, Gujranwala for registration of FIR. Hence, this case.”

3.On arrest of the accused/ appellant and completion of investigation, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned trial Court, where he was formally charged to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses. After closure of the prosecution’s evidence, statement of the accused/ appellant was recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution’s allegation and professed his innocence. He did not opt to be examined on oath under section 340(2) Cr.P.C., however, produced two witnesses in his defence as DW-1 and DW-2.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment is the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the prosecution failed to establish any nexus between the appellant and the proscribed organization; that no evidence was produced showing that the appellant having receipts of Chanda book relating to “Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan”; and that all witnesses are police/CTD officials and the alleged confidential source was never produced. Learned counsel maintained that the prosecution evidence suffers from material deficiencies and, at the very least, gives rise to reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to acquittal.

5.Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution had successfully proved recovery of banned magazines and stickers from the appellant; that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent; and

that the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant after proper appreciation of evidence.

6.Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.The prosecution case essentially rests upon two evidence(s) the alleged recovery from appellant and statements of police officials. There is no cavil to the proposition that evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely because of their official status. However, in case where entire prosecution story originates from police raid and alleged offence founded upon collection and receipt of funds, the Court is required to examine whether the evidence on record establishes each statutory ingredient of the charged offences with the requisite degree of certainty. In present case, such examination brings certain material deficiencies to surface. On perusal of record it transpires that recovery of five receipts (P-201 to P-205) from Chanda Book P-1 purporting to be recovered by investigating officer from appellant is of no use as no effort has been made in order to find any whereabouts of donor from whom appellant collected funds neither the same finds mentioned in the statement of Investigating Officer nor established from recovery Memo Ex.PB. Furthermore, prosecution did not make any serious effort in recovering any major material connecting appellant with proscribed organization even no further raid in the house of appellant was made in order to find some more evidence except those of recovering five receipts (P-201 to P-

205)from Chanda Book and one blue ball point with Rs.12000/-, CNIC of appellant with Rs.3300/- (P-5/1-6) and 12-stickers (P-6/1- 12). It is pertinent to mention here that although said ball point was sent to PFSA but its ink matching or comparison with script was never done as is evident from report of PFSA (Ex.PU/1-2). These omission assumes importance because Section 11-H of ATA creates distinct offences relating to inviting, receiving and providing money or property and requires proof of the requisite intention or reasonable cause to suspect its terrorist use. Another important aspect is that though Investigating Officer collected CDR Ex.PE (P9/1-30) but he did not investigate the matter for establishing appellant’s connection

Crl.A.No.3372 of 2025, 5

with any person having nexus with proscribed organization. Furthermore, statements of Syed Auon Muhammad 262 Corporal (PW-3) and Imran Sohail Corporal, are in conflict, as Syed Auon Muhammad 262 Corporal appearing as PW-3 stated that on 14.08.2023 at about 01:30 P.M., he as Team Incharge alongwith other team members was present at Phalia-Bherowal Road “Source passed on information to me through Whatsapp call that one person who belongs to banned organization “Tehre-e-Taliban Pakistan”, was present near Dogal Chowk Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahaudin and was collecting funds for his organization for the promotion of his organization. If immediate raid be conducted, he could be apprehended. Considering the information credible, I constituted raiding party and reached above said place at about 01:40 P.M. alongwith my companions. On the pointing of source, one unknown person was standing there who tried to escape on seeing police vehicle. I with the help of my companions apprehended him without giving him chance to escape, who disclosed his name as Israr Khan son of Sher Bahadar, case Davaizi, aged 28 years, R.O Ayupi Korr, Post Office Yakka Gand, Tehsil Pindiyali, District Mahmand Agency presently residing at Barkat Town, Lahore.” (underlining for emphasis is ours). On the other hand, , PW-4 Imran Sohail Corporal in his examination-in-chief also claims, that, he, is the one who on 14.08.2023 at 01:30 P.M. received WhatsApp call from the source and the text reads as under;

“Source passed on information to me through Whatsapp call that one person who belongs to banned organization “Tehrek-e-Taliban Pakistan”, was present near Dogal Chowk Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahaudin and was collecting funds for his organization for the promotion of his organization. If immediate raid be conducted, he could be apprehended. Considering the information credible, I constituted raiding party and reached above said place at about 01:40 P.M. alongwith my companions. On the pointing of source, one unknown person was standing there who tried to escape on seeing police vehicle. I with the help of my companions apprehended him without giving him chance to escape, who disclosed his name as Israr Khan son of Sher Bahadar, case Davaizi, aged 28 years, R.O Ayupi Korr, Post Office Yakka Gand, Tehsil Pindiyali, District Mahmand Agency presently residing at Barkat Town, Lahore.” (underlining for emphasis is ours).

Perusal of both these controverting statements does not make clear that amongst the two material PWs who was the Team In-charge who received call from the sources went for raid and arrested appellant and these inconsistent statements of the witnesses render their credibility doubtful.

8.It is settled law that for extending benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be a multitude of circumstances. Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is sufficient, and such benefit is available to an accused as a matter of right and not of grace or concession. In view of above, in the absence of any concrete evidence and failure to establish the appellant’s requisite intention under the relevant provisions cumulatively create reasonable doubt. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must stand on its own legs the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in case titled “Muhammad Khan and another Vs. State” (PLJ 2000 SC 1041) that “it is axiomatic and universal recognized principle of law that conviction must be founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and hence any doubt that arises in prosecution case must be resolved in favour of accused”.

9.For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Israr Khan, awarded by learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 17.12.2024 is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges by extending him the benefit of doubt. The appellant Israr Khan is in jail is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi) (Khalid Ibn-i-Aziz) Judge Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge Judge Umar Hayat*