IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No.154 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 26.01.2015 passed by the Peshawar High 
Court Peshawar in Cr. A. No.174-P of 2014)  
 
 
Afzul-ur-Rehman 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
  
The State 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mrs. Kausar Iqbal Bhatti, ASC 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Rizwan Ibrahim Satti 
 
State counsel 
 
Date of hearing: 
26.10.2020. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
    Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- An explosive laden 
truck, with the appellant on the wheel, was intercepted by a police 
contingent within the precincts of Police Station Banda District Kark at 
17:20 p.m. on 4.6.2013; he was accompanied by Niaz Muhammad, 
since acquitted. Cache, considerable in volume, was forensically 
confirmed as high intensity explosive; it also included detonators and 
an hand grenade, secured vide inventory of even date. As the 
investigation progressed, the appellant, purportedly desired to make his 
breast clean; he was brought before a Magistrate on 6.6.2013, who 
recorded his confessional statement, reproduced below: 
  توف دارفا ھچ لک روا رڈنامک نامحر یلو ںیم سج اوہ ہلمح نورڈ ںیم ہاش ناریم
 ید دعب ےک سا ۔ےئوہ  روا اھت اتلاچ یڑاگ ںیم ۔ےئگ ےرام ںیم ہڈناب یھب گول رگ
 ےریم ۔ںیہ رویئارڈ کرٹ پآ ہک اہک ےن فشاک ےھجم ۔اھت ہن لماش ںیم نیدہاجم
 ےن ںیم ۔ےئگ واج ےل ٹاہوک ینابوخ رپ یرودزم ہناہام  رازہ سد غلبم ھتاس
  ہلاوح ےھجم ےک رک ڈول کرٹ رھپ ۔ےہ یرودزم فاص روا کاپ وت ہی ہکاہک
  اک توم یک نمحرلا یلو روا ںوہ یطوط اک تنج ںیم ہک ایگ اہک ےھجم رھپ ۔یئوہ
  وہ ہناور ےس ںاہو رھپ ۔ےگ ورک ہلمح شُک دوخ رپ لنٹ ٹاہوک ےیل ےک ےنیل ہلدب
  ےھجم ےن فشاک رھپ اوہ ٹنڈیسکیا اک کرٹ اریم ںیم دودح یک علض کرک رک
ںوہ ہن ای ںوہ رایت ےیل ےک ہلمح شک دوخ ںیم ہک اہک اریم ہک اہک ےن ںیم وت ۔
  فشاک رھپ ۔ےہ ایگ ایلا ےس یتسدربز روا روز وت ےھجم ےہ ہن نئمطم ریمض
 ےن پآ ہکاہک ایک نوف ےن ناریما ےھجم ۔ایک ےلاوح ےھجم کرٹ روا ایگ لاچ
 ںیم لٹوہ لگ یداب/نوم ینہ یڑاگ روا ۔ےہ ایگ گاھب فشاک ہک اہک  ںیم  وتشپ
 اہک رپ نوف ےھجم ۔ےہ ایک اڑھک رھپ ۔ںیہ ےتجیھب رنیلک/ ہدنب ارسود ںیہن انٹلپ ہک
 اہک روا ایگ اید روز ںاہو بج ںیمہ رھپ ۔ایگ ایلاُب ناتسریزو ںیم رھپ ۔ایآ دمحم دیس
  دوخ مہ روا ےئگآ ربہر رکآ سپاو رھپ ۔ےئآ ہن سپاو ہدنز ۔واڑُا ںیناج ینپا ہک ایگ
ازاب یچلا ہو بج روا ۔ےئوہ ہناور لنٹ ےیل ےک ہلمح شُک  یڑاگ یک ربہر ںیم ر
 وج جج ںیمہ ہک یک حلاص ںیم سپآ ےن دمحم دیس روا ےن ںیم وت ےئگ وہ ہابت
  ےھجم ےن دمحم دیس ۔ےترک ںیہن ہکامھد شُک دوخ رگم ےہ لوبق ںیمہ ےد ازس
 کرٹ مہ روا ایگ لاچ بناج یک ٹاہوک ربہر ۔ےہ یک تاب یھچا یڑب ےن پآ ہک اہک
Criminal Appeal No.67-L of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.1133-L of 2014 
 
2 
 ب رک وہ ہناور بناج یک کرک رک ےل  بج دعب ےک سا ۔ ےگل ےنرک سپاو وک ںون
 ںیم وت اید ھتاہ ںیمہ ےن سیلوپ وت ےئوہ بیرق ےک ٹسوپ کیچ روا ےچنہپ ہڈناب
 ہن رئاف یئوک ہک وہک ےس ںولاو سیلوپ رک رتُا ےچین ہکاہک ےس دمحم دیس  ےن
 ںیم ۔ یچنیھک ٹلُب ےن سیلوپ رھپ ۔ےئاج ہن ٹھپ ےہ دوراب ںیم کرٹ ہک ںید رک
 رتُا ےن  ےن دمحم دیس روا ےیک ےڑھک ھتاہ رک اگل گنلاھچ ںیم یناپ ےچین رک
 ایابد ںیہن نٹب شک دوخ روا ید یراتفرگ دوخ ےن ںیم ۔ید یراتفرگ رپ عقوم
 اک یفاعم ںیم ایک راکنا ےس شک دوخ روا اھت ایگ رڈ ےس اللہ ںیم ہکنویک
۔ایک میلست تسرد رک نُس  ۔ںوہ راگتساوخرد  
 
Upon indictment, however, the appellant claimed trial. The learned trial 
Judge vide judgment dated 20.3.2014 convicted and sentenced both the 
accused as under: 
(i) 
“U/s 5 of Exp Sub Act 1908 (Act OV of 1908) 14-years 
 
(R.I) 
 
(ii) 
U/s 7 ATA 1997 (Act No.XXVIII of 1997) 14-years (R.I) 
 
Forfeiture of whole property to the Government as 
 
envisaged u/s 5-A of Exp Sub Act 1908 (Act IV of 
 
1908) Sentences to run consecutively with benefit of 
 
section 382-B Cr.P.C.” 
 
A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court acquitted Niaz 
Muhammad co-accused, however, maintained appellant’s conviction 
and sentences consequent thereupon vide impugned judgment dated 
26.01.2015 vires whereof are being assailed through leave of the Court 
on the grounds that retracted confession notwithstanding, appellant’s 
voluntary surrender before the police, by his own volition and will, is 
manifestly established on the record which in retrospect confirms that 
he saved the neighbourhood from an impending calamity by taking the 
unsuspecting police contingent into confidence and in this backdrop his 
role was more accessory to the State than to the crime; he contends 
that confessional statement, attributed to the appellant, being 
exculpatory, is of no avail to the prosecution and that acquittal of 
identically placed co-accused by the High Court raised the entire edifice 
to the ground. Alternately it is prayed that in the peculiar facts and 
circumstances of the case, referred to above, reduction in the sentence 
would meet the ends of justice, as although the case was triable by a 
Special Court constituted under the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, however, 
in view of the law declared in the case of Ghulam Hussain Vs. The State 
(PLD 2020 SC 61), appellant’s conviction under section 7 of the Act ibid 
was not called for, concluded the learned counsel. The learned Law 
Officer contrarily defended the judgment; he argued that interception of 
truck loaded with explosive of awful lethality being transported by the 
appellant conclusively established his guilt and in the face of 
overwhelming evidence, retraction from judicial confession is nothing 
more than a belated attempt to hoodwink the process of law. 
Criminal Appeal No.67-L of 2020 and  
Criminal Petition No.1133-L of 2014 
 
3 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Prosecution 
with 
various 
pieces 
of 
evidence 
has 
successfully established interception of a truck that carried huge cache 
of explosive with devastating destructive potential. Appellant’s arrest is 
a factum above suspicion. Investigative details accompanied by forensic 
report clinched the charge. The appellant confessed his guilt before a 
Magistrate after he was already remitted into judicial custody. Contents 
of 
the 
confessional 
statement, 
purposely 
detailed 
in 
extenso, 
unmistakably suggest a change of mind whereunder the appellant 
appears to have deviated from the course, he was destined to charter; 
better sense that timely swayed the appellant not only saved him and 
his companion from being shattered beyond recognition; it also gave a 
new lease of life to a most valuable national communication link. The 
police contingent that intercepted the truck had no idea about the 
destructive capacity of the cargo that it carried; they also luckily 
remained unscathed. Appellant’s abstinence, seemingly actuated by a 
variety of possible factors, though a most fortunate choice, nonetheless, 
in the totality of circumstances, does not cast away culpability of his 
undertaking so as to make out a case for an unqualified reprieve 
without a tag; it, however, certainly extenuates, in no small measures, 
enormity of the charge and in retrospect entitles him to the premium of 
a charitable treatment, permissible by law, therefore, while maintaining 
his conviction under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, a 
course inescapable in circumstance, his sentence is reduced to the 
lowest mandated period of seven years R.I, pre-trial period inclusive. 
Directions regarding forfeiture of appellant’s property as well as case 
property, that obviously included the impounded truck, are kept intact, 
however, his conviction under section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 
and sentence thereunder, are set aside.  Criminal appeal is partly 
allowed. 
       
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
26 October, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
