| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 1565 2013 SLD 1565 2013 SCMR 698 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2011, decision dated: 21st November, 2012. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 11-12-2008 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No.433-T of 2005)
NASIR-UL-MULK, TARIQ PARVEZ AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ
M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, APG for the State.
Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2011, decision dated: 21st November, 2012. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 11-12-2008 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No.433-T of 2005)
NASIR-UL-MULK, TARIQ PARVEZ AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ
M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Zubair Ahmed Farooq, APG for the State.
HAKIM KHAN
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)---S. 13--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Unlicensed possession of arms etc.---Appreciation of evidence---Police witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Non-association of private witnesses during recovery---Scope---Police encounter---Accused was allegedly arrested in an injured condition during a police encounter and arms and ammunition were recovered from him---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965---Appeal filed by accused before the High Court was also dismissed---Contentions of accused were that serious prejudice was caused to his defence as he was not represented by any counsel before the High Court; that he was implicated in the present case since he wanted to lodge a criminal case against police officials for killing one of his friends in a fake police encounter---Validity---Police officials had given direct testimony about the arrest of accused in an injured condition with unlicensed weapon---Although witnesses were police officials but keeping in view the fact that there was cross-firing between the police and accused, who refused to surrender, there was no question of any person from the public being available for the purpose of witnessing the recovery---Accused was defended by a counsel before the Trial Court, where prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination---Accused opted not to engage a counsel before the High Court, however his present appeal was heard with the assistance of a senior defence counsel appearing on his behalf, thus no prejudice was caused to the accused---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. JUDGMENT TARIQ PARVEZ, J.---The appellant Hakim Khan, besides being charged in two other F.I.Rs., was charged in case F.I.R. No.40 of 2004 dated 13-6-2004 registered under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance. According to the prosecution case, during an encounter a proclaimed offender Ali Noor was killed, whereas during the said police encounter the accused/appellant-Hakim Ali was injured and besides other arms/anmunitions, one Kalashnikov having 170 live rounds, 7-loaded magazine and patta magazine were recovered. Theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492