RIAZ MASIH vs STATE
This criminal petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's criminal appeal and maintained his conviction and sentence under Section 7(b) and Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question involved the assessment of evidence regarding the petitioner's involvement in firing at a police party during vehicle checking and the subsequent recovery of stolen vehicles, number plates, and documents on his pointation. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the petitioner through the testimonies of seven witnesses and positive forensic reports, and further noted that the petition was barred by 198 days without plausible explanation. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissed the petition, and declined leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact supported by consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence in criminal matters shall not be interfered with absent legal infirmity.
- Whether conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act can be sustained on the basis of eyewitness testimony and recovered stolen property?
- Whether a criminal petition barred by significant delay without a plausible explanation is liable to be dismissed?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts in criminal cases?
- Section 7(b), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 7(h), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--This petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.6.2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby Criminal Appeal No, 78-T of 2004 filed by petitioner was dismissed and his conviction and sentence recorded under Section 7(b) of Anti- Terrorism Act to 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs, 10,000/- or in default to further undergo R.I. for 3 months and under Section 7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to one year R.I. was maintained. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the petitioner.
2. Precisely, the allegations against the petitioner' was that he alongwith his co-accused fired successive shots on police party while Abdur Razzaq, Inspector AC.LC Headquarter, Golera Sharif, Islamabad, accompanied by Asjad Mehmood S.I. and other police officials were present on patrol duty in Sector 1-8 and were checking stolen vehicles. While checking the car, a Suzuki Mehran came rushing from the side of Sector I8/2 at 8:20 p.m to which Muhammad Akram, Constable gave it signal with a torch to stop but the driver dashed the car towards him in order to hit him but he was saved. The said car had the Plate No, IDL-3571. The complainant party followed the car but the culprits succeeded in running away. However, the petitioner was arrested on 8.8.2003 in some other cases bearing FIR Nos, 275 and 276. He was shown his arrest in these cases on 19.8.2003 and on his pointation the police recovered Registration Book of IDL/3517, ID Card, transfer letter, diary, cheque book, photo copy of bill of entry, note book, another note book, purse containing telephone diary etc, two number plates LXM 6327, two more number plates IDT 6205, two number plates IDK/2013 and 6 number plates, 6 digits of IDM 15 figures, photo copy of ID card, registration book, photo copy of ID card, registration letter, registration book, photo copy of ID card, Transfer letter, registration book, photo copy of. ID card, transfer letter and registration book from his house. Police also recovered above mentioned stolen car and crime empties which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the report was positive.
3. From above narration, it transpires that the petitioner is habitual car lifter and is involved in so many cases. In instant case, police has collected so many articles including registration books and number plates of different vehicles. The prosecution has produced as many as 7 witnesses who have fully implicated petitioner with the commission of offence. Petition is also barred by 198 days for which no plausible explanation has been given.
4. Accordingly, we find no reason to differ with the impugned judgment, thus petition is dismissed and leave declined.