ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---At the outset we have been informed that Haji Habib appellant in Criminal Appeal N. 419 of 2016 has already died a natural death on 02.12.2015 and, thus, in view of this development Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2016 has abated to his extent.
2. The remaining appellants namely Asif, Sheraz and Niazbeen were booked in case FIR No. 301 registered at Police Station Mattani, District Peshawar on 27.10.2013 in respect of offences under sections 324 and 353, P.P.C., section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 7 of the Anti-T errorsm Act, 1997 and after a regular trial they were convicted by the trial court for offences under sections 324 and 353, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. read with section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and rigorous imprisonment for one year each respectively for the said offences and were also ordered to pay fine besides having been convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 read with section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997. The appellants challenged their convictions and sentences before the High Court through a joint appeal which was dismissed and their convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court were upheld and maintained. Hence, the present appeals by leave of this Court granted on 08.10.2010.
3. Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.
4. The record of the case shows that the appellants had connections with the Tehreek-i-T aliban, they were apprehended red-handed at the spot with firearms and a huge quantity of explosive substance was recovered at their instance at the place of occurrence. The eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were public servants who had no ostensible reason to falsely implicate the appellants in a case of this nature. The said public servants had made consistent statements before the trial court pointing their accusing finger s towards the present appellants as some of the persons who had fired at the raiding police party and at whose instance explosive substance had been recovered after they had been apprehended red-handed. All the reports of the experts submitted in this case had been received in the positive. All the crime-empties recovered from the scene of the crime had matched with the respective weapons recovered from the appellants' possession. Both the courts below had undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the record and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the appellants having been proved to the hilt and upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence we have not been able to take a view of the matter different from that concurrently taken by the courts below . The sentences passed against the appellants have been found by us to be appropriate. Although separate sentences ought to have been passed against the appellants for the offence under section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 yet the State has not sought such enhancement from this Court as no petition/app eal has been filed by the State before this Court in that regard.
5. For what has been discussed above these appeals are dismissed.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 26-P of 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2016
6. As the main appeal has been dismissed by this Court, therefore, this miscellaneous application seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Dismissed.