TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, J.---The Appellant was tried by the.. learned Judge, Anti-T errorism Court, Multan, in case FIR No.03/2016 dated 11.1.2016 registered at Police Station CTD, Multan, for offences under Sections 9, 11- F(2), 11-W(2) of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 (the "Act"). The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 13.7.2016, convicted and sentenced him as under: i) Convicted under Section 9 of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. ii) Convicted under Section 11-F(2) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. iii) Convicted under Section 11-W(2) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C. was also extended to him.
2. As per complaint Exh.P A, brief facts of the case are that on 11.1.2016 at about 4:15 p.m. Complainant Muhammad Saleem Kamran/ Inspector (PW-2) along with other officials was surveilling near Morcha when some persons came and informed him that the Appellant had created faceb ook ID vide email address ranashahid200@yahoo.com through which he was disseminating hate material against Shia and Bralvi sects.
Besides, he eulogized and glorified the defunct Sipah-e-Sahaba. The Complainant and his team reached the IT Cell of CTD where Corporal Umar Arshad 1174/CPL (PW-5) searched the aforementioned facebook. ID in their presence and found that the Appellant had created the profile in the name of Rana Shahid and its timeline was "open for all". It was further revealed that he had shared/disseminated the following hate material: (i) "Kanjron kay Kanjar Shia Allah-o-Akbar , Kuttay our Bandar Shia Allah-o-Akbar" (video); (ii) "Goli ki awaz sun kar Shia Zakir ki Phat Gai Hahahaha, Jese Inka Bharwaan Imam Buzdil Wese Os Kay Perokar Buzdil"; (iii) "Kafir Kafir Shia Kafir. Jo na Mane wo bhi Kafir" (Article); (iv) "1963 kay Act kay mutabik Heera Mandi ka licence sirf Shia aurat ko hi miley ga. "(video); (v) "Mujhay Yaqeen hay jo ye video dekh lay ga usko Shia kay Kafir hone par koi shaq nahi". (video);
(vi) "Ab Raj Karay gi SSP (Article); and (vii) "Eid Milad-un-Nabi kay naam par Bralvi ka Kanjar Khana" (video).
Umar Arshad Corporal (PW-5) drew the prints of the printable material and downloaded the videos in USB which Muhammad Saleem Kamran/ Inspector took in his possession vide Recovery Mem o Exh.PB that was attested by Allah Waris 968/CPL (PW-3) and PW Kabir Ali Khan 586/CPL (given up). On this complaint (Exh.P A) ArsIan Ibrahim 789/CPL (PW -1) registered FIR No.03/2016 (Exh.P A/1).
3. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Mustafa Kamal (PW-7). He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Complainant Muhammad Saleem Kamran/Inspector also handed over the recovered hate material to him, including the print-outs (P-11/1-7) and USA P-18 containing the videos along with Recovery Memo Exh.PB.
Mustafa Kamal/Inspector then went to the house of the Appellant which was found locked. He inspected the same and prepared rough site plan Exh.PH. He searched and eventually arrested him on 13.1.2016. On his personal search he recovered from him mobile phone Nokia 1200 P-1 along with SIM No.03009887473 P-2, cash amounting to Rs.220/- and a handkerchief P-3 which he seized vide Recovery Memo Exh.PC. On 14.1.2016 he produced him before the Magistrate who granted him his physical remand for seven days. On 18.1.2016, during interrogation the Appellant disclosed that his facebook account was ranashahid200@yahoo.com whose password was shahid 12345 from which he had.been dissemi nating hate material against Ahl-e-T ashi and Ahl-e-Sunnat Bralvi sects.
Umar Arshad (PW-5) took out the prints of the said material as well comprising 12 pages P-12/1-12 and presented them to the Investigating Officer who took the same into possession vide Recovery Memo Exh.PG. On 19.1.2016, while on physical remand, the Appellant led Mustafa Kamal/Inspector to his house situated in Mohallah Rehmanpura, Scheme No.1, and got recovered CPU P-7 and EVO P-8 which the latter seized vide Recovery Memo Exh.PD. The Appellant also got recovered a penaflex P-9 from the drawing room and handed it over to him which he took into possession vide Recovery Memo Exh.PE. There was an almirah built in the southern wall of the drawing room from which the Appellant took out a diary of the year 2003 and handed it over to the Investigating Officer. According to him, the said diary reminded him of his brother Zahid Hussain who was a hardcore activist of a proscribed organization and was executed in a sectarian case: The said diary had an inciting poem written on page dated 12.9.2003. Mustafa Kamal/Inspeet or secured that diary vide Recovery Memo Exh.PF . After completion of investigation report under Section 173 Cr .P.C. was submitted.
4. On 2.3.2016, the learned trial Judge indicted the Appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Com plainant Muhammad Saleem Kamran/Inspector got his statement recorded as PW-2. Allah Waris 968/CPL (PW-3) deposed that the Complainant received information about the Appellant's nefarious activities. In his presence and gave detail of the proceedings that he conducted in pursuance thereof. He along with Nasir Majeed 797/CPL (PW-4) also testified about various recoveries made in this case. Umar Arshad 1174/CPL (PW-5), who was the Incharge IT, deposed about recovery of hate material from account of the Appellant. Touqeer Aslam 971/CPL (PW-6) depos ited parcels containing USB and CPU in the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore, on 22.1.2016. The Investigating Officer, Mustafa Kamal/Inspector (PW-7), gave details of the investigation and the evidence he collected in this case. The learned prosecutor gave up Corporal Kabir Ali Khan being unnecessary . In documentary evidence the prosecution inter alia produced forensic report Exh. PL.
5. After the close of prosecution evidence the learned trial Court recorded the statement of the Appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations levelled against him and professed innocence. When he was asked as to why this case had been registered and why the PWs had deposed against him he replied: "I am innocent. I have no concern with any banned organization and I am not a member of any such organization.
Police have mala fide involved me in this false case just to show their efficiency . All the witnesses are interested ones. Police have involved me in this case being brother of Rana Zahid (late) who was executed in a sectarian case. All recoveries are fake and planted. I neither belonged to the house from which the recoveries were allegedly effected nor I am resident of said house."
6. The Appellant neither opted to make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor examined any witness in his defence. On the conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment dated 13.7.2016, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned hereinabove.
7. In support of this appeal the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant was innocent and the police had falsely implicated him in--this case due to ulterior motives. The learned trial Court had not appraised the evidence properly which had caused serious miscarriage of justice. He mainta ined that the Appellant had no connection with any proscribed outfit, particularly the defunct Sipah-e-Sahaba, and there was not an iota of evidence on record to prove to the contra ry. He next contended that the obnoxious facebook ID was not created by the Appellant and the hate material disseminated through it was not his work. The learned counsel further contended that Umar Arshad, 1174/CPL (PW-5) was not a computer expert and the data that he had alleged to have downloaded was fictitious. The alleged recoveries were fake and the police had foisted the same on the Appellant. Lastly , the prosecution case was full of contradictions and could not be relied upon to record conviction against the Appellant. He prayed that this appeal be accepted and the Appellant may be acquitted of the charge.
8. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposed this appeal. He maintained that the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record.
10. The Complainant, Muhammad Saleem Kamran/Inspector (PW-2), reiterated the prosecution case as set out in complaint Exh.P A and FIR No.03/2016 Exh.P A/1. Allah Waris 968/CPL (PW-3) corroborated him in material particulars. He confirmed that on 11.1.2016 some people of the Ahl-e-T ashi and Ahl-e-Sunnat sects came to the Complainant in his presence and complained about the spite which was being spread by the Appellant through facebook. He also testified that the Complainant decided to take action and went to the IT Cell of the CTD with him and other officials where Corporal Umar Arshad checked the facebook ID created by the Appellant and found vicious material therein. He further stated that Umar Arshad took print-outs P-11/1-7 of the printable content and downloaded the videos in USB P-18. Saleem Kamran/Inspector took these documents in his possession vide Recovery Memo Exh.PB.
11. On 13.1.2016 the Appellant was arrested. The Investigating Officer, Mustafa Kamal/Inspector (PW-7), deposed that on 8.1.2016 during interrogation he disclosed that his password for e-mail ranashahid200@yahoo.com was shahid 12345. He further stated that Umar Arshad 1174/CPL (PW-5) checked the Appellant's activity- in that e-mail and found that he had spiteful conversation with Muhammad Altaf and Hafiz Sharif and took 'prints thereof P-12/1- 12 (12 pages). Allah Waris 968/CPL (PW-3) and Nasir Majeed 797/CPL (PW-4) corroborated these facts. In addition thereto, they also proved recover y of CPU P-7, EVO P-8, penaflex P-9 and diary P10 at the instance of the Appellant.
12. Umar Arshad 1174/CPL (PW-5) was the IT Incharge of the CTD. He proved that he took print-outs P-11/1-7 and P-12/1-12 and downloaded videos on USB P-18 from the Appellant's facebook.
13. The above-mentioned witnesses remained consistent on all material points. The Appellant cross-examined them at length but could not impeach their credibility . His learned counsel could not point out any significant contradiction in their depositions. The learned counsel attempted to argue that the recovery proceedings were a nullity because no public witness was associated. This argument has no force. It is by now well settled that police witnesses are as good as any other witness unless it is proved through reliable evidence that they have a reason to falsely implicate the accused. No such material has been brought on record in the instant case. Reliance is placed on Reliance is placed on Naseer Ahmad v. The State (2004 SCMR 1361 ), Aala Muhammad and another v. The State (2008 SCMR 649) and Muhammad Khan v. The State (2008 SCMR 1616 ). Even otherwise, Section 19-A of the Act I excludes the application of Section 103 Cr .P.C.
14. The Investigating Officer sent the USB P-18 and the CPU P-7 to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore It's report Exh.PL reinforces the prosecution case.
15. In his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. the Appellant alleged that the police had falsely implicated him in this case to show their efficiency because his brother Rana Zahid was a hardcore activist. In view of the overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution, we do not find any substance in this plea. The same is, therefore, rejected.
16. After thorough reappraisal of evidence we have come to an ineluctable conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the Appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Therefore, we uphold his conviction.
17. Admittedly , the Appellant is a first offender. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the sentence handed down by the learned trial court to him is harsh. Accordingly , we reduce it as under: Under Section 9 of the Act Rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
Under Section 1 1-W(2) of the Act Rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
However , the sentence under Section 11-F(2) of the Act, including imprisonment and fine, is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr .P.C. is also extended to the Appellant.
18. Subject to the above modification, this appeal is dismissed .