MALIK SHAHZAD AW AD KHAN, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.236319-I of 2018 , filed by Rizwan Hassan (appellant) against his convictions and sentences awarded to him by the learned District and Sessions Judge/Judge, Anti-T errorism Court, Faisalabad vide judgment dated 20.07.2018.
2. Rizwan Hassan (appellant) was tried in case FIR No.09/2018 dated 28.02.2018, registered at police station CTD, Faisalabad in respect of offences under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act 1997. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.07.2018, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: - Under section 5 of the Explosive Substances. Act to five (05) years rigorous imprisonment.
Under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 to three years rigorous impris onment with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. was also extended to the appellant.
3. Brief facts of the case as given by the complainant Liaqat Ali, S.I. (PW-5), are that on 28.02.2018, at about 3.00 p.m., he (complainant) along with Muhammad Shahid 720/Corporal, Muhammad Asim 465/Corporal, Asif Abbas 493/Corporal and other members of the operation team was present in front of Central Jail, Jaranwala Road, Faisalabad in connection with official duty. On spy information that an activist of proscribed organization "Tehreek- e-Jaf faria Pakistan" having small bag in his hand was standing near Punjtan Town Stop, Jaranwala Road, Faisalabad, after constituting a raiding party , a raid was conducted at the abovementioned place at 3.35 p.m. On seeing the police party , the appellant tried to slip away but he was apprehended by the raiding party , who disclosed his name as Rizwan Hassan (appellant). On search of the appellant, one pistol 30 bore along with magazine and six bullets were recovered from the fold of his Shalwar , whereas a wallet containing an amount of Rs.3500/-, and identity card was recovered from the back pocket of the pent of the appellant. The bag, which the appellant was holding in his right hand was found suspicious, whereupon Bomb Disposal Squad was called. On checking of bag by the Bomb Disposal Squad, a hand grenade, wrapped in a piece of cloth was recovered, which was defused by the Bomb Disposal Squad and handed over to Liaqat Ali, S.I. (complainant). The appellant did not produce any licence or permit for keeping the hand grenade in his custody . Two separate sealed parcels i.e., one containing pistol 30 bore along with magazine etc and the other containing defused hand grenade were prepared and the same were taken into possession by the Investigating Of fice.
4. The appellant was arrested by the Counter Terrorism Department and after completion of investigation the challan. was prepared and submitted before the learned trial court. The learned trial COurt, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced seven witnesses during the trial. The statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence.
5. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.07.2018, found the appellant guilty , convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is absolu tely innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case by the prosecution; that in fact the appellant was arrested and kept in illegal confinement by the police of police station Shahzad Town, Islamabad, whereupon the father of the petitioner lodged FIR No.22/2018, dated 30.01.2018, offence under section 365, P.P.C., registered at police station Shahzad Town, Islamabad and in order to justify its illegal action, the police of police station Shahzad Town, Islamabad, handed over the appellant to CTD, Faisalabad, whereupon the instant false case has been lodged against the appellant; that there are material contrad ictions in the prosecution evidence; that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, this appeal may be accepted and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge.
7. On the other hand learned Law Officer has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant while contending that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt, therefore, he was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court; that the appellant could not establish any mala fide on the part of the prosecution for his false involvement in this case; that there is no substance in this appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, the learned Law Officer and have also gone through the evidence available on the record with their able assistance.
9. The detail of the prosecution case as set forth in FIR (Ex.P A/I) has already been given in Para No.3 of this judgment, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same.
10. In order to prove its case the prosecution has produced the recovery witnesses namely Liaqat Ali SI (PW-5) and Muhammad Asim 465/Corporal (PW-6). Both the abovementioned witnesses have stated that on 28.02.2018, they along with other officials of Counter Terrorism Department of Faisalabad were present in front of Central Jail, Jaranwala Road, Faisalabad. On the basis of spy information that an activist of proscribed organization "Tehreek-e- Jaffaria Pakistan" having small bag in his hand was standing near Punjtan Town Stop, Jaranwala Road, Faisalabad, they conducted a raid at the abovementioned place, where the appellant was found present there.
They further stated that on seeing the officials of Counter Terrorism Department, the appellant tried to slip away but he (appellant) was over-powered by them. They added that on search of the appellant, one pistol 30 bore along with magazine and six bullets were recovered from the fold of his Shalwar , whereas a wallet containing an amount of Rs.3500/-, and identity card was recovered from the back pocket of the pent of the appellant. They further deposed that the bag, which the appellant was holding in his right hand was found suspicious, whereupon Bomb Disposal Squad was called and on checking of bag by the Bomb Disposal Squad , a hand grenade, wrapped in a piece of cloth was recovered, which was defused by the Bomb Disposal Squad and handed over to Liaqat Ali SI (PW-5). The appellant did not produce any licence or permit to keep the hand grenade in his custody . Two separate sealed parcels i.e., one containing pistol 30 bore along with six live bullets and the other containing defused hand grenade were prepared and the same were taken into possession vide memo (Fx.PD). Both the abovementioned recovery witnesses were cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel but their evidence could not be shaken and nothing favourable to the appellant could be brought on the record. They remained consistent on all material aspects of the case. Their evidence is trustworthy and confidence inspiring.
11. The prosecution case against the appellant is further corroborated by the report of Bomb Disposal Commander , Civil Defence Of fice, Faisalabad (Ex.PC), the relevant portion of which reads as under:- Hand Grenade thoroughly checked under mentioned writing observed on hand grenade P. F engraved on its body No.36 MM and 44 Digits engraved on its base plug.
This type of hand grenade can kill up-to 30 yard and it can injured up-to 100 yard Whereas the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PF), also corroborates the case of the prosecution against the appellant, the IB relevant portion of which reads as under:-- Conclusion: The item PI pistol was examined and found to be in mechanical operating condition with; safety features functioning properly .
12. The safe custody of recovered defused hand grenade and pistol 30 bore along with magazine containing six bullets has been proved through the evidence of Liaqat Ali SI (PW-5), who stated that on 28.02.2018, he handed over the case property to. the Investigating Officer namely Abdul Majeed Inspector (PW-7), whereas, Abdul Majeed Inspector (PW-7), stated that he received the case property from Liaqat Ali SI (PW-5) on 28.02.2018 and on the same day he handed over the same to Irfan Mehmood 5114/C (PW-2). Irfan Mehm ood 5114/C (PW-2), stated that on 28.02.2018, he received sealed parce ls said to contain defused hand grenade and pistol 30 bore along with magazine etc ' from Abdul Majeed Inspector (PW-7). He further stated that on 06.03.2018, he handed over the sealed parcel said to contain defused hand grenade to Muhammad Asim 465/Corporal (PW-6), for its onwards transmission to the office of Bomb Disposal Squad and on 07.03.2018, he handed over the sealed parcel said to contain pistol 30 bore along with magazine to Muhammad Asim 465/Corporal (PW-6) for its onwards transmission to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore. Muhammad Asim 465/Corporal (PW-6) stated in his examination-in-chief that after receiving two sealed parcels of defused hand grenade and pistol 30 bore along with magazine etc on 06.03.2018 and 07.03.2 018, respectively , he deposited the said parcels in the concerned offices on the same days intact i.e., 06.03.2018 and 07.03.2018, respectively . The abovem entioned prosecution witnesses were also cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel but their evidence remained consistent and straight-forward. Keeping in view the evidence of the above-mentioned productio n witnesses safe custody of the parcels of defused hand grenade and pistol 30 bore along with magazine has also been proved in this case beyond the shadow of any doubt.
13. Insofar as defence plea taken by the appellant that he was earlier abducted by the police of police station Shahzad Town, Islamabad and in order to save its skin he (appellant) was handed over to the Counter Terrorism Department of Faisalabad by the police of police station Shahzad Town, Islamabad, whereupon the present false FIR was lodged against him, is concerned, we have noted that the appellant took a specific defence plea, therefore, under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 , the burden was upon the appellant to prove the said plea but except producing in evidence rupt Mark "A" and FIR No.22/2018, dated 30.01.2018, offence under section 365, P.P.C., registered at police station Shahzad Town, Islamabad as Mark "B", the appellant did not produce any other evidence to prove the said plea. No witness was produced by the appellant to prove that he was abducted by E anyone prior to the registration of present case. Even the appellant himself did not bother to appear in the witness box as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant could not prove his abovementioned defence plea.
14. Having considered all the pros and cons of this case, we have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against Rizwan Hassan appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt through the above mentioned confidence inspiring and reliable evidence.
15. Insofar as the question with regard to quantum of sentence of the appellant is concerned, we have noted some mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant. Firstly the appellant was also charged for offence under section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997, with the allegation that he was a membe r of the proscribed organization "Tehreek-e-Jaf faria Pakistan " but the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the recor d has acquitted the appellant from the said charge, secondly there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant is a previous convict in any other such like case.
16. As per record the appellant was arres ted in this case on 28.02.2018 and he is behind the bars since his arrest and as such he has already undergone a period of almost two years of his imprisonment. In the light of above discussion, the convictions of Rizwan Hassan (appellant) under sections 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, award ed by the learned trial Court are maintain ed and upheld but his sentences for the said offences are reduced G to the one, which he has already undergone. The sentence of fine awarded by 'the learned trial Court and sentence in default thereof is maintained and upheld.
17. Consequently , with the above said modification in the sentence of Rizwan Hassan (appellant), Criminal Appeal No.236319-J of 2018 filed by Rizwan Hassan (appellant) is hereby dismissed.