Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 3069 2011 SLD 3069 2011 PCRLJ 261
Quetta High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2008, decided on 9th September, 2010.Date of hearing: 20th May, 2010.
BEFORE SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR AND GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JJ
Muhammad Aslam Chishti for Appellant. Haji Liaquat Ali for the State.

MEHRAN---APPELLANT

VS

THE STATE---RESPONDENT

Law: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, (XX of 1965)

Section: 13(e)

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)--- ----S. 13(e)---Unlicensed possession of arms etc.---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Witnesses contradicted each other qua number of cartridges recovered---Recovery memo showed that the Figure was converted into ‘20’ by means of over-writing which was not endorsed by initials---Trial Court lost sight of contradictions of the case---Disclosure of accused to Police on the last day of his physical remand raised doubts as to the validity of the disclosure and recovery---No one was associated as witness from the house from which recovery was made---Said house was not in exclusive possession of the accused---Case of prosecution was highly doubtful---Trial Court failed to extend benefit of doubt to the accused---High Court while giving benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitted him of the charge. JUDGMENT: MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, JUSTICE:---.--- Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant feeling aggrieved of judgment dated 26-12-2008 of Sessions Judge, Dera Allah Yar, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under section 13(e) of Arms Ordinance, 1965, while sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000, in default further suffer imprisonment for three months. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment, thereby his acquittal of the charge on grounds that the disclosure attributed to him was made on 17-9-2005 almost on last day of permissible limit for police remand, as he was arrested on 4-9-2005. No independent witness was associated with factum of disclosure, nor any witness of locality was made mashir of seizure memo. Further, it is not clear that whether the recovery was made on pointation of appellant in terms of Article 40 of Qanoon- e-Shahadat Order or whether he led the police party to the place of recovery and produced the same to the police. Due to the contradiction in statements of witnesses the recovery is not free from doubt. Further, in connected Murder Case bearing No.10 of 2005 the Report of FSL is present on record, which reveals that the whole of the crime empties not wedded to the recovered katashnikov, which was kept in custody of police…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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