KARACHI: An antiterrorism court has observed that in the prevailing situation in the city even powerful people and elites are reluctant to come forward and testify against criminals in routine criminal cases.

The judge of the ATC-II, who was conducting atrialin acase pertainingto streetrobbery and encounter, made this observation while announcing a collective sentence of 10-year imprisonment for mugger Talib Hussain on different counts.

Hussain was found guilty of attempting to rob a citizen, Waheed Afzal, engaging in an encounter with a chasing police party and wounding one of the policemen, Head Constable PervaizIqbal, in the SITE-A area last year.

The judge overruled the argument of the defence counsel that the police had not included any private person and relied on the testimonies of policemen against accused Talib Hussain.

The judge found Hussain guilty of attempting to commit an armed robbery and also wounding a chasing policeman with an unlicensed weapon.

The judge noted that in the present case the convict had first tried to commit robbery in a street and thereafter used serious violence by opening fire on the police party and deterred them from performing their duty because of which one policeman was wounded.

He added that the bungled mugging incident took place in a populated area. `Hence, the presentactofaccusedpersonshadcreated sense of fear, panic, terror and insecurity among the people of the area as well as in the society.

The judge observed that in the present case one piece of evidence led to another, and there was no missing link in the story of the prosecution.

Hence, the prosecution had proved its cases beyond any reasonable doubt and shifted the burden on the accused, but the accused f ailed todischarge the same, the judge added.

Defence counsel Wazeer Khoso contended that there were contradictions in the evidence arguing that the complainant as well as the prosecution`s witnesses, who were policemen themselves, had tried to improve their version earlier stated in the FIR, thus their testimonies were doubtful.

He added that prosecution failed to associate any private person from the locality, where the alleged incident had taken place, as witness.

The judge noted that the law does not operate in the vacuum and has to take into consideration the overall circumstances prevailing in society.

`Even, stronger persons are reluctant to come forward for giving evidence in routine criminal cases,` he noted. `While, robbery coupled with police encounter in which even police official was injured are serious crimes and trial-able by the ATC.

The judge added that in cases of such criminals, the victims/ complainants would rather prefer to let the culprits go unpunished then to appear in court. `In prevailing circumstances no private persons even the neighbour is willing to act as a witness in criminal cases.

The judge ruled that `considering the prevailing trend where the victims of crimes do not press and pursue their cases, the present complainant has shown courage and character`.

Therefore, the judge sentenced the convict to threeyear imprisonment on count of attempting to commit armed robbery and ordered him to pay Rs5,000 fine. On default, he would undergo an additional three-month imprisonment.

The judge also handed down a collective sentence of 10-year imprisonment on counts of engaging in encounter with police and deterring them from performing their duties.

The convict was also ordered to pay Rs15,000 fine or undergo nine-month additionalimprisonment.

The court also sentenced him to two-year imprisonment for injuring Head Constable Pervaiz Iqbal and ordered to pay him Rs10,000 in compensation.

He was furthered sentenced to five-year imprisonment and slapped with a fine of Rs3,000 for possessing caliber .9 mm pistol used in the offence. On default, he would undergo three-monthadditionalimprisonment.

The court had already declared two alleged accomplices of the convict Hamid, alias Faiz Muhammad, and Imtiaz, alias Khan proclaimed offenders in the present case since the investigating officer stated their whereabouts `untraceable`.

A case was registered under Secdons 392 (robbery), 353 (encounter with police), 324 (attempt to murder) and 337(f)(2)(Shajja) of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 7 (punishment for acts of terrorism) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 23(i)-A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013.