2009 PLP 933 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-9-2008 passed by the learned Judge Anti Terrorism Court D.I. Khan, whereby the appellant, Gul Baz Khan, has been convicted and sentenced under sections 324/353/34, P.P.C. read with section 7(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act to ten years' RI, under section 13 Arms Ordinance to three years' RI, under sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act to five years' RI and under section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act to five years' RI and to pay fine of Rs.20,000, in default to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story as narrated by the complainant Niaz Muhammad Khan, Inspector/SHO of police station Saddar D.I.Khan is to the effect that on receipt of spy information about the presence of the convict/appellant in the fields of Garrah Ahmad who was a proclaimed offender in case F.I.R. No.4 dated 12-1-2004 under section 302, P.P.C. of Police Station Paroa, he along with police party when reached there saw the appellant present who when chased fired at them with Kalashnikov which was retaliated but the accused ran towards the house of one Gulzaman where he was arrested from inside of the house and from his possession one Kalashnikov along with a magazine and bandolier containing six spare magazines and 95 live cartridges of the same calibre, one hand grenade together with a detonator, and a dagger were recovered and the case F.I.R. No.202, dated 28-6-2007 under sections 324/353, P.P.C., section 13 Arms Ordinance, section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 7, ATA was accordingly registered against him.

3. After completion of investigation and submission of challan, the accused was put on trial before the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court D.I. Khan where he was formally charge sheeted but he denied the allegations in toto and by claiming trial professed innocence. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused produced and examined seven witnesses, whereafter statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. but neither he appeared as his own witness as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge on evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing pro and contra arguments of the parties found the accused guilty of the offence charged with and consequently on conviction sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal by the convict/appellant.

4. We have carefully scrutinized the entire record of the case and anxiously considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the prosecution had successfully been able to prove its case against the convict/ appellant and, therefore, the impugned conviction of the appellant is based on correct legal footings. Admittedly, the appellant was a fugitive from law at the time of his arrest in a murder case who when chased by the police had fired at the police party with his Kalashnikov which was also retaliated by the police in self defence. A huge quantity of illicit arms and ammunitions have been recovered from the direct conscious and physical possession of the appellant with no plausible explanation therefor. The appellant had voluntarily confessed his guilt before Anwar Saeed Khan Kundi (P.W-5) who had fulfilled all the legal formalities in this behalf and the appellant without any force or coercion has admitted his accusation and such admission is admissible in evidence under the provisions of section 21(H) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. He has miserably failed to show any animosity towards the P.Ws. The prosecution case is fully supported from the recoveries effected from the spot of occurrence, the positive report of the Bomb Disposal Squad N. W. F. P. Peshawar, the effectively firing at the police party with intention to kill them which also created terror and panic in the locality, fully brought home the charge to the accused/appellant.

6. From whatever angle we see, the prosecution case is found fully proved against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to prove any illegality or irregularity in the impugned of conviction of the learned trial Judge which is the result of sound appraisal of evidence brought on record and to which no exception can be taken by this court.

7. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed and the impugned conviction and sentences of the appellant are maintained. H.B.T./50/P Appeal dismissed.