| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 2247 2025 SLD 2247 = 2025 SHC 536 |
Crl. Appeal No.S-117 of 2024
Ali Haider ‘Ada’,J
Fazul son of Eiddan Bharo : Through M/s Mehfooz Ahmed Awan Ateeq-ur-Rehman Shaikh and Farhan Ali Shaikh, Advocate. State. : Through Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh.
Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013
Section: 23(1)(a)
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 382-B,342
Law: Police Rules, 1934
Section: 22.70
Summary:
The judgment concerns the appeal against a conviction under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, where the appellant was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and fined Rs. 50,000 for possession of illegal arms and ammunition.
Core Points:
- The prosecution case was based on police patrolling on 28.10.2023, where they allegedly intercepted two persons with a white GLi car carrying 18 magazines and 3400 bullets of Kalashnikov.
- The accused was apprehended on the spot, while one person escaped.
- The complainant and other prosecution witnesses gave conflicting accounts regarding:
- The reception of spy information.
- Description and exact location of the incident.
- Presence and role of mashirs (witnesses) during recovery.
- Whether the recovered property was sealed.
- Custody and transmission process of the arms and ammunition.
- There was a 26-day delay in sending the recovered arms to the forensic lab with inadequate explanation.
- Key procedural lapses included failure to produce mashirs from private persons, contradictory testimony about police station entries, and failure to put forensic lab findings to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
- The trial court was also found to have ignored certain material questions.
- Precedents from Supreme Court rulings emphasized that any evidence not put to accused under Section 342 cannot be used against him, and if there is reasonable doubt due to procedural defects and contradictions, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Law and Sections Table:
| Section / Law | Description | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Sindh Arms Act, 2013 | ||
| Section 23(1)(a) | Prohibition on acquiring, possessing, or carrying any firearm or ammunition without license. | Punishable by imprisonment up to 14 years and fine. Case involved possession of illegal ammo. |
| Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. | Benefit of doubt given to accused in criminal cases. | Lower court extended benefit to accused under this section. |
| Section 342, Cr.P.C. | Statement of accused to be recorded after presenting evidence; material evidence must be put. | FSL report and evidence not put to accused per this section, so cannot be used against accused. |
| Police Rule 22.70 (Register XIX) | Relates to keeping records of case property in police malkhana (custody). | Defects observed in proper entries and custody record-keeping in this case |
Conclusion:
This judgment highlights critical procedural safeguards and the importance of corroborated and properly documented evidence in arms possession cases under the Sindh Arms Act. The failure to meet these standards resulted in acquittal due to reasonable doubt.