ATTA ULLAH alias HASNAIN alias HASSAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, which convicted the appellant under Section 13-A(2)(c) of the Arms Ordinance for the illegal possession of a Kalashnikov, magazines, and ammunition. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of illicit arms beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the defense's argument that the recovery was planted, the witnesses were exclusively police personnel, and there was a violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court held that the prosecution had proven its case beyond any shadow of doubt, noting that the recovery of a significant quantity of ammunition, supported by the testimony of police witnesses and a positive report from a Bomb Disposal Expert, was credible. The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that police witnesses are as competent as public witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their official status, provided no malice or motive for false implication is established.
- Can the testimony of police witnesses be discarded solely on the ground that they are police officials?
- Is the recovery of a large quantity of ammunition sufficient to rebut allegations of a planted recovery?
- Does the failure of an accused to produce defense evidence under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impact the court's assessment of the prosecution's case?
- Section 13-A(2)(c), Arms Ordinance
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 31-3-2004 passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, Rawalpindi Division and Islamabad Capital Territory constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, (for having possessed a Kalashnikov (P.1), three magazines and 56 rounds), through which judgment, appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-
(i) Under section 13-A(2)(c) of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to R.I. For ten years. He was extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted against the appellant before the learned Court df competent jurisdiction, accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where, the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced six prosecution witnesses during the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal contends that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case; in the main murder case the appellant has been acquitted; that the eye-witnesses of recovery against the appellant were disbelieved in the main case; that it was intended to strengthen the main case; that the recovery was planted on the appellant; that all the witnesses are police witnesses whose testimony cannot be relied upon; that there is a violation of section 103, Cr.P.C.; that the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent qua the place and mode of recovery; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal.
4. On the .Other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction, submits that the recovery was effected from the appellant; that there is no mala fide on the part of the prosecution witnesses and that the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The appellant, while in the custody in case F.I.R. No,300 of Police Station Murree, on 11-9-2002 led to the recovery of a Kalashnikov, three magazines, 56 bullets and 2 handgrenades for which he could not produce any licence.
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced the following prosecution witnesses:--
(i) Buniad Ali S.-I. (P. W. 1; (ii) Tariq Mehmood, S.-I. (P.W.2); (iii) Muhammad Aslam, A.S.-I. (P.W.3); (iv)
Muhammad Shah, Bomb Disposal Expert (P.W.4); (v) Amir Ali A.S.-I. (P.W.5); and (vi) Asghar Ali Cheema Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.6).
All the above witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. The appellant neither produced any defence evidence in order to prove his innocence nor under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He rebutted the same.
8. It is settled by now that the police witnesses are as good as the other public witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded merely because they are police witnesses. The said witnesses have no malice or motive to falsely depose against the appellant. Huge quantity ammunition C was recovered from the appellant and such a quantity of cannot be planted coupled with the fact that positive report of Bomb Disposal Expert is available on record, who also appeared before the learned trial Court to prove the said report.
9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration their respective submissions, this D Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. The nutshell of the above discussion is that this appeal is dismissed having no merit after having maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court in toto.