Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 3489 2025 SLD 3489 = 2025 SHC 1877
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-124 of 2024
Ali Haider ‘Ada’,J

Appellant: Hakim Ali alias Hakoo, through Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo, Advocate

VS

The State

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: 23(1)(a),34

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 103,342,340(2),382-B

Law: Police Rules, 1934

Section: 22.16 & 22.70

Summary

The appellant was convicted for possession of an unlicensed weapon based on recovery by the police. However, the appeal court found serious procedural flaws including lack of independent witnesses at the recovery, unexplained delay in sending the weapon to forensic testing, and failure to prove safe custody of the weapon. Due to these lapses and insufficient evidence, the conviction was overturned and the appellant acquitted.

Core Points:

  • Weapon recovery lacked independent witnesses despite public location.
  • Unexplained 12-day delay in dispatching weapon to Forensic Science Laboratory.
  • No proof of secure custody or entry of weapon into police Malkhana register.
  • Failure to examine key witnesses handling weapon custody and transmission.
  • Investigator was also complainant, affecting impartiality.
  • Legal principle of benefit of doubt was applied to acquit the appellant.

Law and Section:

Law / SectionDescription
Section 23(1)(a), Sindh Arms Act, 2013Punishment for possession of unlicensed weapon
Section 103, Cr.P.C.Association of independent witnesses during recovery
Section 34, Sindh Arms Act, 2013Police officials and private persons can be witnesses of recovery
Section 342, Cr.P.C.Recording statement of accused
Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.Giving defense evidence on oath by accused
Rules 22.16 & 22.70, Police Rules, 1934Procedures for handling and recording case property
Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.Suspension of sentence pending appeal

 

JUDGMENT

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register