RIAZ MASIH vs THE STATE
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the criminal appeal of the petitioner and maintaining his conviction and sentence under sections 7(b) and 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question involves determining the culpability of the petitioner for firing at a police party and being in possession of stolen vehicles and fake number plates. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent witness testimonies and recovery of incriminating articles upon the petitioner's pointation. The petition was also found to be barred by 198 days without plausible explanation. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the petition and declining leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on solid evidence and positive forensic reports regarding terrorist and criminal acts will not be interfered with, particularly when the petition is hopelessly time-barred.
- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a criminal petition barred by a significant delay without plausible explanation be entertained?
- Whether recovery of stolen vehicles and incriminating articles upon the accused's pointation sufficiently corroborates eyewitness testimony in a criminal case?
- 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 allegation against the petitioner was that he along with 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 1-8/2 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 F.I.R. 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, photocopy of bill of entry, note book, another note book, purse containing telephone diary etc. Two number plates LXM-6327, two more number plates IDT 6025, two number plates IDK/2013 and 6 number plates, 6 digits of IDM 15 figures, photocopy of II) 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 reasons to differ with the impugned judgment, thus petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 1 case
- AHSAN BANGASH alias JUNAID vs The STATE 2017 P Cr. L J 509