Suicidal Attack on Mosque and Conviction

Suicidal Attack on Mosque and Conviction Case Laws Criminal Appeal Criminal Law Death Penalty Confirmation Knowledge - Criminal Law Lahore High Court Litigation & Arbitration Murder Solutions - Criminal Law Mr. Justice Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi in his judgment has decided the issue regarding conviction and suicidal attack on mosque in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2011.

1. This single judgment shall dispose of Crl.A.No.62 of 2011 titled “Hameed Ullah v. The State” filed by Hameed Ullah (appellant), against his conviction and sentence, as well as Capital Sentence Reference No.01-T of 2011 titled as “The State vs. Hameed Ullah”, transmitted by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Hameed Ullah (appellant) being originated from the same judgment dated 29th of January, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Rawalpindi Division & Islamabad Capital Territory in case FIR No.556 dated 21-08-2008 under sections 302,324,435,436, 120-B/34 PPC, 3,4,5,6 EA, 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station, Wah Cantt. District Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant Hameed Ullah was convicted and sentenced as under:

a. U/S 120-B PPC and the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act read with clause (a) of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Section 302 PPC, sentenced to death on 69 counts with fine of Rs.two lacs on 69 counts. In default of payment of fine, he was further held liable to further undergo S.I. for six months on each default.

b. U/S 120-B PPC and the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act read with clause (b) of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act and Section 324 PPC, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years 44 counts with fine of Rs.one lac on 44 counts. In default of payment of fine, he was further held liable to further undergo S.I. for three months on each default.

c. 120-B PPC and the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act read with clause (c) of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten year 35 counts with fine of Rs.one lac on 35 counts. In default in payment of fine, he was further held liable to further undergo S.I. for three months on each default.

d. Under Clause (d) of Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act read with Sections 435, 436 PPC, imprisonment for ten years (R.I.) with fine of Rs.one lac. In default of payment of fine, he held liable to further undergo three months S.I.

e. U/S 4 Explosive Substances Act, imprisonment for seven years (R.I.) and

f. U/S 5 Explosive Substances Act imprisonment for fourteen years (R.I.).
All the punishment was order to be run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended in favour of the appellant.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case as narrated in the complaint dated 21-08-2008 Ex.PZ is that the complainant Subedar Major Ghulam Rasool along with Naib Subedar Muhammad Rafique, Subedar Munawar Hussain and Havaldar Muhammad Aslam was standing near the gate of Nurain Mosque on 21-08-2008 at about 2.00 pm and at that time seven youngsters came out from the mosque and out of them four headed towards link road leading to main gate. The complainant along with Subedar Muhammad Rafique was standing near the gate and at about 2.35 PM, sound of blast was heard and at that moment one out of the three youngsters intruded the employees who were coming out from the gate and blew himself up. In the meanwhile, other two youngsters tried to run away and out of them one was apprehended by the complainant and said Subedar Muhammad Rafique, who told his name Hameed Ullah. The said Hameed Ullah was wearing explosive jacket. In the blast 25 persons lost their lives on the spot whereas about 50 persons got injured besides motorcycles and the bicycles were also damaged. The complainant was also came to know that another youngster had thrown one grenade at the main gate but the same was not exploded. On the basis of complaint, the FIR was chalked out.

3. After receipt of challan against the present appellant/accused, charge was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 33-PWs in all to bring home the guilt of accused/appellant . PWs No. 1 to 16 except (PW.10) are the witnesses, who received injuries during two blasts each at gate No.1 and main gate of POF Wah Cantt. Subedar Munawar Hussain, (PW.17), Muhammad Rafique, Naib Subedar (PW.18) and Subedar Major Ghulam Rasool (PW.31) are the witnesses of ocular account. Mukhtar Haider, constable (PW.25) and Sher Afsar, Inspector (PW.27) are the witnesses of recovery. Sadaqat Khan, SHO (PW.26), Abdul Sattar, Inspector (PW.30) are the investigating officers of this case, who stated the various steps taken by them during investigation. The Medical evidence in this case was furnished by Doctor Muhammad Masood, (PW.24).

4. The statement of the appellant under Section 342 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He denied the allegations levelled against him and claimed his innocence. In answer to a question, “why this case against you and why the PWs had deposed against you”, appellant/accused replied as under:

“I am innocent. I have been roped in the instant case falsely. I am resident of Waziristan and Pathan by caste. I was arrested from Waziristan after the alleged occurrence on suspicion. I have no concern with the alleged offence nor having any connection with the co-accused. PWs deposed against me on the instruction of their high ups to make un-witnessed case to be made strong. All PWs were partial witnesses. No private impartial witness had been produced by the prosecution. If I had any explosive articles on my body, I would have exploded myself at the time of arrest.”

The appellant opted not to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr. P.C. in disproof of the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution nor opted to produce defence evidence.

5. Upon completion of the trial the learned trial court found the case against the appellant to have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and thus convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence, the appeal before this Court.

6. The learned trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties passed the above said conviction and sentences, which is being impugned herein.

Further information regarding conviction and suicidal attack on mosque can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.