ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through these appeals under sections 410, Cr.P.C. And 25 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, Safeer Ahmad alias Muhammad Azeem alias Umair, Mufti Sagheer Ahmad, Ghulam Qadir alias Hayat Ullah alias Watto, Muhammad Yasir Wafaq, Muhammad Siddique alias Abdullah, Abdul Moeed alias Akhtar Baranwali, Ubaid Ullah Asghar alias Hafiz Asad and Syed Muhammad Masood appellants have challenged the conviction and sentences awarded to them by the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.I, Lahore in case FIR No.581/2007 dated 1-7- 2007, under sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sections 21-C and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore, who vide judgment dated 18-12-2007, convicted and sentenced them as under:- Under section 21-C of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to undergo 10-years' R.I. Each.
Under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to undergo 14-years' R.I. Each.
All the sentences shall run consecutively.
2. The occurrence ln this case was reported by Ayaz Ahmad Inspector through complaint (Exh.PH), wherein he narrated that on 1-7-2007, he alongwith Nasir Ahmad S.I., Dilawar Hussain S.I., Maratab Ali ASI, Nazir Ahmad ASI, Muhammad Bin Yamin, Muhammad Saleem, Talib Hussain head constables, Shaukat Ali, Tariq Bashir, Muhammad Boota, Tanveer Zaman, Ihsan Ullah, Aslam and Muhammad Yasin constables were present at bus stop Darbar Baba Daider Sain for investigation of case FIR No.596/2007 under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sections 7, 21-C of the, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Lorri Adda, Lahore, and during investigation, Safeer Ahmad, Mufti Sagheer, Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Yasir Wafaq accused made disclosure that they had obtained a house on rent in Iqbal Park, Itefaq Town, where their four companions namely Muhammad Siddique, Abdul Moeed, Ubaid Ullah Asghar and Syed Muhammad Masood are present along with remaining material to be used by them in preparation of bombs and they can get their companions arrested. On the said information, Safeer Ahmad, Mufti Sagheer, Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Yasir Wafaq accused led the police towards Iqbal Park, Itefaq Town, pointed their house and led the police inside the house, where four persons were apprehended and their names were known as Muhammad Siddique, Abdul Moeed, Ubaid Ullah Asghar and Syed Muhammad Masood accused. The accused Safeer Ahmad, Mufti Sagheer, Ghulam Qadir, Muhammad Yasir Wafaq, Muhammad Siddique, Abdul Moeed, Ubaid Ullah Asghar and Syed Muhammad Masood entered in a room turn by turn and got recovered the articles which were to be used by them for preparation of bombs. The articles consisted of 100 pressure cookers, 16 bags of barood, one copper wire bundle of 2 Kg, four packets of transistors each packet containing 500 pieces, 80 hydro L type, 17 IC base, 3 Mohadab glasses with one stand, 8 wire cutters, 28 PCB plates, four packets of IC base each packet containing 100 pieces, one stabilizer machine, laptop Del, incomplete decoders with wires, 2 packets of glue crystal sticks, 45 small plastic, boxes.
3. After registration of the FIR, investigation of the case was conducted by. Ayaz Ahmad Inspector (P.W.6) and after completion of the same, challan was submitted against the appellants. Charge was framed against them on 19-10-2007, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
4. To substantiate its version at the trial, the prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses before the learned trial Court. Ocular account was furnished by Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant (P.W.6), Muhammad Bin Yamin head constable (P.W.4) and Nasir Ahmad S.I. (P.W.5). Apart from furnishing ocular account, Ayaz Ahmad Inspector (P.W.6), deposed regarding investigation of the case conducted by him. Muhammad Aslam (P.W.1) testified the report (Exh.PA), while Nauman Ashraf Bodla (P.W.9) retrieved data from the laptop recovered on the pointing out of the appellants and testified report (Exh.PJ). Rest of the prosecution witnesses are more or less formal in nature. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded by the learned trial Court. They professed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. They did not opt to get record their statements under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, produced Haji Shabbir Ahmad (D.W.1), Muhammad Yaqoob (D.W.2) and Haseeb Ahmad Safi (D.W.3) in their defence.
5. Upon culmination of the trial, after thrashing the entire evidence and evaluating the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective versions, learned trial Court found the prosecution's case to have been proved against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt proceeded to convict and sentence them as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Hence, these appeals before us.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the judgment of the learned trial Court is against law, facts and circumstances of the case; the appellants are absolutely innocent, they have been entangled by the police in the instant case only to show efficiency. Learned counsel further submit that the appellants were taken into custody by the agencies much prior to showing their arrest in the instant FIR and have been arrayed as accused in this case on the pressure of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as a case regarding missing persons was taken up by the Hon'ble Court; according to the FIR, all the alleged eye-witnesses are police employees and their statements are not supported by any independent witness from the public, so the conviction and sentences of the appellants cannot be maintained only on the statements of police officers; as a matter of fact, the appellants were taken away by the agencies and later on they have been involved in this false and frivolous case without any plausible justification; the evidence so produced is not confidence- inspiring and is not worthy of credence, because, there are material contradictions between the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded before the trial Court; the recoveries were planted upon the appellants just to strengthen the prosecution case against them; even otherwise, the police has not associated any private person in the recovery proceedings, which falsify the factum of recoveries; the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellants, so they deserve clean acquittal.
7. On the other hand, learned Law Officers appearing on behalf of the State oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submit that it was a promptly lodged FIR and the appellants are named therein with specific allegation of possessing material for preparation of explosives, which excludes the element of deliberation and consultation about their involvement in the instant case; all the appellants were caught red-handed and huge material, which they had to use in preparation of explosives was recovered on their pointing out, which clearly connect them with the commission of crime; the police officers, who furnished ocular account before the learned trial Court, had no enmity, grudge or malice against the appellants to implicate them in this case of heinous nature and even otherwise, the defence has not brought on record any ulterior motive of the police to depose falsely against the appellants, as such they are as good witnesses as the private persons would be; the ocular account is furnished by the trustworthy and reliable witnesses and that is duly corroborated by the recoveries effected from the appellants; apart from recovery of above said material, a laptop was also recovered on the pointing out of the appellants, which was sent for analysis and the data retrieved from the laptop by P.W.9 clearly show that the appellants belong to defunct organization and they had planned terrorist activities; the prosecution case against the appellants stands proved from all angles, hence, prays for dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellants and maintaining the conviction and sentences awarded to them by the learned trial Court.
8. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, and learned Law Officers for the State and have gone through the entire record with their able assistance.
9. Perusal of FIR (Exh.PH/1) shows that initially Safeer Ahmad, Mufti Sagheer, Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Yasir Wafaq appellants were arrested by Ayaz Ahmad Inspector (P.W.6) along with other police officers/officials on 1-7-2007 at 6-45 a.m. And at the time of their arrest, huge quantity of material for preparation of explosives was recovered from them, as a' consequence of which FIR No.596/2007 dated 1-7-2007, under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and sections 7, 21-C of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was registered at Police Station Lorri Adda, Lahore. During investigation of that FIR, Safeer Ahmad, Mufti Sagheer, Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Yasir Wafaq appellants disclosed about their co-accused i.e. Muhammad Siddique, Abdul Moeed, Ubaid Ullah Asghar and Syed Muhammad Masood, led the police to the place of their presence, wherefrom, the remaining appellants were also apprehended along with huge quantity of material for preparation of bombs/explosives. Then, Ayaz Ahmad, Inspector (P.W.6) drafted complaint (Exh.PH) and forwarded the same to Police Station, Hanjarwal, Lahore, which is situated at a distance of 3-1/2 kilometers from the place of occurrence. Consequently, FIR (Exh.PH/1) was lodged against the appellants at 10-00 a.m. Thus, it is apparent that the FIR was got lodged within a short span of thirty minutes and the complainant has not only named the appellants, but has also mentioned each and every minor as well as material fact of the incident therein, which of course excludes the possibility of deliberation or consultation regarding false implication of the appellants in the instant case.
10. The prosecution has tried to prove its case against the appellants through the statements of Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant (P.W.6), Muhammad Bin Yamin head constable (P.W.4) and Nasir Ahmad S.I. (P.W.5), recoveries effected from the appellants and the positive reports (Exh.PA and Exh.PJ) of the experts. The details of the occurrence have already been mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the judgment. In his statement before the learned trial Court as P.W.6, Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant reiterated the same facts and levelled the same allegations as are incorporated in FIR (Exh.PH/1). In order to support the deposition of Ayaz Ahmad Inspector (P.W.6), the prosecution has relied on the statements of Muhammad Bin Yamin head constable and Nasir Ahmad S.I. Recorded by the learned trial Court as P.W.4 and P.W.5 respectively. Both these witnesses have consistently corroborated the version adopted by P.W.6 and after careful scrutiny of the statements of above said prosecution witnesses (P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6), we found that their statements are in line with each other on each and every minor as well as material aspect of the case and smooth flow of facts is apparent from their depositions. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but without extracting anything beneficial for the appellants.
During arguments, learned counsel for the appellants have emphatically urged that Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant (P.W.6), Muhammad Bin Yamin head constable (P.W.4) and Nasir Ahmad S.I. (P.W.5) all are police employees and the prosecution has failed to produce even a single private person in support of its case. In this respect, we would like to observe here that the police witnesses are as good witnesses as any other witness until and unless the defence could have successfully shattered their credibility or bring on record any mala fide of police witnesses to depose against the accused. In the instant case, all the witnesses of ocular account stood firm to the test of cross- examination and their credibility could not be shaken by the defence.
Moreso, during trial before the learned trial Court and even today before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants have not urged any rancor or animosity of Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant (P.W.6), Muhammad Bin Yamin head constable (P.W.4) and Nasir Ahmad S.I. (P.W.5) with the appellants, as such, we are fully satisfied that their statements are free of mala fides. We would, therefore, like to hold that the depositions of police witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely on the bald allegation that they happened to be employees of police department.
Coming to the question about non-production of any private witness by the prosecution to support its case, we are of the opinion that in cases like the one in hands, people from public try not to indulge themselves as witnesses of the occurrence so as to avoid future enmity with the terrorists.
Even otherwise, the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence before the learned trial Court to prove ocular account of its case, so it was not under obligation to produce any witness from public that too when it had already produced three police officers, who were as independent witnesses as the private persons may be, because they had also no enmity, grudge or ulterior motive to depose falsely against the appellants.
The outcome of above discussion is that Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant (P.W.6), Muhammad Bin Yamin head constable (P.W,.4) and Nasir Ahmad S.I. (P.W.5) successfully proved their credence, therefore, the learned trial Court was quite justified to rely on them while awarding conviction and sentences to the appellants and we also do not find any spite with the P.Ws. So as to consider their testimony unworthy of reliance.
11. It is also available in FIR (Exh.PH/1) that at the time of arrest of the appellants by Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant (P.W.6), huge quantity of material, which they had to use in preparation of bombs/ explosives i.e. 16 bags of gunpowder/barood (P1/1-16), one bundle of copper wire (P2), four packets of transistors (P3/1-4) each of which was containing 500 transistors, 80 Hydro L Type (P4/1- 80), 17 IC Base (P5/1-17), three mohadab glasses (P6/1-3) with one stand (P7), 8 wire cutters (P8/1- 8), 28 PCB plates (P9/1-28), four packets of transistors (P10/1-4) each of which was containing 100 transistors, one stabilizer (P11), 20 incomplete decoders (P13/1-20),two packets of glue crystal sticks (P14/1-2) and 45 small plastic boxes (P15/1-45) were recovered by. Ayaz, Ahmad Inspector (P.W.6) on the pointing out of the appellants from the house, which they had acquired on rent. In this respect, the positive report (Exh.PA) of the Bomb Disposal Commander is also available on record, which proved that the above articles, if not recovered from the appellants, could have been used for preparation of explosives. The above recovery has successfully been proved by the prosecution through the statements of Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/ complainant (P.W.6) and Nasir Ahmad S.I.
(P.W.5), whom we have already held trustworthy and reliable witnesses.
We have gone through the statements of appellants recorded by the learned trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. And found that no plausible justification has been forwarded by them for keeping the above material in their custody. The recovery of aforementioned material on the pointing out of the appellants has, therefore, provided enough corroboration to the ocular evidence of Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant (P.W.6), Muhammad Bin Yamin head constable (P.W.4) and Nasir Ahmad S.I. (P.W.5) so as to bring their guilt to the hilt.
12. Apart from the recovery of explosive material as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, a laptop (P12) was also recovered on the pointing out of the appellants, the same was sent to the Federal Investigation Agency's Headquarter at Islamabad, which after retrieving data from the hard disc submitted its report which is available on record as Exh.PL. In this regard, Nauman Ashraf Bodla, Manager Technology, Special Investigation Group, FIA, Headquarter Islamabad appeared before the learned trial Court as P.W.9 and deposed that during examination of the hard disc taken out from the laptop (P12), he found Jehadi movies, maps of different countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, books related to war techniques, pictures of detonators, circuits, diagrams, electric/ electronics switches and material regarding triggering of bomb devices, timer bombs, automatic receivers, chargers, explosives, weapons, training material of Jehad and mechanism of rocket in the hard disc. P.W.9 further deposed that all the material retrieved from the hard disc was separately saved on two CDs (P35/1-2) and two DVDs (P36/1-2). The material retrieved from the laptop (P12) clearly shows that the appellants were involved in training about the preparation of explosives without any valid authorization from competent authority and keeping in view the analogical circumstances of the case, we are afraid that had the appellants not been arrested in time, they might have caused terrorist attacks.
13. Adverting to the defence evidence, it has been observed by us that Haji Shabbir Ahmad (D.W.1) and Muhammad Yaqoob (D.W.2) appeared in defence of Safeer Ahmad appellant, while Haseeb Ahmad Safi (D.W.3) appeared to defend one Abdul Moeed. Both D.W.1 and D.W.2 stated before the learned trial Court that Safeer Ahmad appellant along with his brother Aziz Ahmad and Muhammad Yaqoob (D.W.2) were taken away by the agencies on 14-4-2007 and thereafter his brother and D.W.2 were released, but Safeer Ahmad appellant was still under the illegal confinement of the agencies. So far as D.W.3 is concerned, he too has stated that he along with Abdul Moeed appellant was taken away by the agencies much prior to the occurrence and only he was released later on. Neither the defence witnesses pointed out any particular agency, which took away Safeer Ahmad and Abdul Moeed appellants along with D.W.2 and D.W.3 nor did they claim any animosity of the agencies against them. During cross-examination on the defence witnesses, it has been established on record that Haji Shabbir Ahmad (D.W.1) is real father of Safeer Ahmad appellant, while Muhammad Yaqoob (D.W.2) is his maternal uncle. Similarly, Haseeb Ahmad Safi (D.W.3) is also cousin of Abdul Moeed appellant, so keeping in view their relationship with Safeer Ahmad and Abdul Moeed appellants, it was incumbent upon the defence to corroborate the statements of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 through some independent substance, which is very much lacking in this case. We have also examined the documents produced by the appellants in their defence, but the same do not support the version of the appellants rather the plea of appellants that they had been taken away by the agencies prior to the arrest in the instant case appears to be an afterthought story, having no nexus with reality. Hence, we are of the view that the evidence produced by the defence in the shape of D.W.1 to D.W.3 could not vitiate the trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence of the prosecution.
14. After evaluating the case from all angles, we have come to a definite conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants who were caught red-handed and huge quantity of material to be used in the preparation of explosives was recovered from them. There is no element of doubt in the case in hand, the statements of Ayaz Ahmad Inspector/complainant (P.W.6), Muhammad Bin Yamin head constable (P.W.4) and Nasir Ahmad (P.W.5) inspired confidence and nothing is available on record which could establish that these witnesses deposed against the appellants and implicated them in this case due to previous enmity, grudge or malice or to fulfill some ulterior motive. The ocular evidence is not only corroborated by the recoveries effected on the pointing out of the appellants at the time of their arrest in the instant case, but the data retrieved from their laptop has also strengthened the claim of the prosecution that the appellants were planning to do something extremely inhumane in the shape of terrorist attacks.
15. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the judgment impugned through the instant appeals to the extent of conviction and sentences of the appellants does not call for any interference by this Court, the same are maintained and upheld. However, while pronouncing conviction and sentences of the appellants, the learned trial Court has ordered that their sentences shall run consecutively. The judgment of the learned trial Court to this extent is modified and the sentences of the appellants awarded in the instant case D shall run concurrently instead of consecutively. We also feel it appropriate to mention here that apart from the instant case, Safeer Ahmad alias Muhammad Azeem alias Umair, Mufti Sagheer Ahmad, Ghulam Qadir alias Hayat Ullah alias Watto and Muhammad yasir Wafaq appellants have also been convicted and sentenced in case FIR No.596/2007 dated 1-7-2007, under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Police Station Lorri Adda, Lahore. So, the sentence of imprisonment awarded, to Safeer Ahmad alias Muhammad Azeem alias Umair, Mufti Sagheer Ahmad, Ghulam Qadir alias Hayat Ullah alias Watto and Muhammad Yasir Wafaq appellants in the above said criminal case shall run consecutively with the sentences awarded to them in the instant case.
16. Criminal Appeals Nos. 1612 and 1586 of 2007 being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed.