RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JSher Bahadur alias Gul Jan son of Amat Khan was convicted by the learned Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist; Activities, Sargodha Division, Sargodha on 15-5-1990 and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. Under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Court further ordered under section 5-A of the said Act for forfeiture of the whole property of the convict.
The convict filed Criminal Appeal No.28/J of 1990 through jail before this Court challenging his conviction and sentence.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that Khalid Mahmood S.I. Police Station Isa Khel on 21-9- 1988 at about 3-00 p.m. Was present on patrol duty alongwith other police force within the area of village Sheikhabad. He received an information through some informant that an unknown person who appeared to be a Pathan was found wandering in suspicious condition. On receipt of the information, the police party alongwith Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din and Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws.
Reached the village Sheikhabad. The said person was apprehended at the spot by the raiding party. He had a rexin bag in his hand. On search of the bag P.1 four detonators, Exh.P.2/1-4, four plastic explosives Exh.P.3/1-4 and one safety fuse Exh.P.4 were recovered. These articles were taken into possession by the raiding party. It was learned later that he was Gul Jan son of Amat Khan resident of village Mehar Ali District Bannu. The accused could not produce any licence to keep these forbidden articles. In the circumstances, Khalid Mahmood Khan, S.I. Drafted a formal complaint Exh.P.C. And sent the same to Isa Khel Police Station for registration of formal F.I.R.
Against the accused under section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Muhammad Iqbal Khan.
A.S.I. Recorded the F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Khalid Mahmood Khan S.I. P.W.1, Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, Councillor, P.W.2, Muhammad Iqbal A.S.I. P.W.3, Rafi Ullah F.C. P.W.4 and Yar Muhammad Khan, A.S.I. P.W.5. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Khan F.Cs. P.Ws. Were given up by the prosecution being unnecessary.
3. The accused denied the allegations levelled against him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He deposed that at the time of his arrest he had a huge amount of cash with him which was snatched and misappropriated by the police party. He further stated that aforesaid ammunition was recovered from one Jahan Shah and not from his possession. He pleaded that he was implicated falsely in the case on the basis of evidence of stock witnesses. However, no defence evidence was led by him in support of his plea.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
5. We have heard the' learned counsel and have also read the whole prosecution evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel. We are of the view that the prosecution succeeded to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Khalid Mahmood S.I. P.W.1 and Ghulam Mohy-ud---Din P.W.2 were the recovery witnesses. They have supported the prosecution case in its material terms. P.W.1 Khalid Mahmood deposed that he received an information that a person was wandering in village Sheikhabad in suspicious condition. He went to the village alongwith police force and Ghulam Mohy-ud---Din P.W.2, a member of Union Council. The appellant was apprehended. He was holding a bag which contained the aforesaid ammunition. These articles were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A. He further stated that the appellant could not produce any licence for keeping the said explosive matter. This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but the witness could not be shaken by the learned defence counsel P.W.1 was substantially supported by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din P.W.2. This witness was an elected Councillor and as such was a respectable person. In our view, the recovery of aforesaid articles was proved by P.W.1 and P.W.2 beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence does inspire confidence. We feel inclined to believe it.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.
SA./S-76/L