Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 397

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: 23(1)(a)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 397---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)---Robbery, possession of unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for snatching mobile phone from the complainant by threatening with a weapon---After perusing the evidence of all three (03) witnesses, no mitigating circumstances were found in favour of appellant to give its benefit to him---All three (03) witnesses had supported each other on salient features of the case---Evidence of said witnesses was complimentary to each other, from arrest of the appellant at the spot to the submission of the challan in the Court, they had espoused each other---Prosecution evidence was complete and without any discrepancy---Defence plea that the appellant was not identified by the complainant was ill-founded---Appellant at the time of arrest was without beard but meanwhile he had grown beard as well as hair, which fact the complainant had narrated in his evidence---Otherwise, complainant had identified the appellant to be the culprit of the present offence---In his evidence, the complainant had clearly stated that accused had changed his appearance by growing beard and hair---Said fact was verified from the photograph of the appellant taken at the time of his arrest, which was without beard and long hair---Besides complainant, the Investigating Officer, who had arrested the appellant at the spot, had also identified him to be the same person---Therefore, there was no mistake in identifying the appellant to be the culprit of the crime---Even otherwise, it was only the appellant, who was arrested from the spot and his accomplice who was with him had fled away---Hence, there was no chance that the real culprit arrested from the spot had been substituted for the appellant at the time of arrest---Revolver was also recovered from the appellant of which he failed to produce any license---Said weapon was sent for Forensic Science Laboratory Examination, the report of which was in positive---Defence had not forwarded any argument to show that recovery of unlicensed revolver from the appellant was doubtful or that the said weapon had been foisted upon him---Evidence of same three…