Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2014, decided on 9th September, 2014.

----S. 13---Keeping unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Alleged recovery of weapon had been effected from a premises, which was neither owned nor resided by accused---Sole witness stated that recovered article (weapon) was brought in his presence and handed over to the Police by the owner of the house as against the statement of Police Officer who effected the recovery---Such material contradiction made the case of recovery highly doubtful---Benefit of doubt should go to accused---Impugned order was set aside and accused was acquitted from charge under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, in circumstances. Malik Haq Nawaz for Appellant. Assistant Advocate-General for the State.

Through this appeal accused/appellant has assailed the order/judgment of Additional District Judge Gilgit dated 6-6-2014 wherein the accused/appellant was found guilty of keeping unlicensed Five Shot Rifle and was sentenced to fine of Rs.50,000 in default of which the appellant shall further undergo for the period of one year simple Imprisonment (S.I.) Brief facts of the case are that the accused/appellant was facing trial under section 302, P.P.C. and 13, A.O. vide F.I.R. No.27/13 of Police Station Pari Banglah and was acquitted from the charge of murder but was convicted under section 13, A.O. vide order dated 6-6-2014 as mentioned above. It is an admitted state of affair the alleged recovery of weapon has been effected from a premises which was neither owned or reside by the accused/appellant. Sole witness Muhammad Ayub P.W.1 further clarifies that the recovered article under Exh.P1/A was brought in his presence and handed over to the police by the owner of the house as against the statement of P.W.7 SIP Abdul Qadus who got the above recovery wherein he states that "as I have already stated the recovery effected from the house of Harat Khan who is son-in-law of accused Mir Ahmed since Hazrat Khan was present in house therefore neither he was arrayed an accused nor cited as witness." This material contradiction makes the case of recovery from the co-accused highly doubtful and the benefit should not go anywhere then to accused/appellant. Reliance can be made a case law PLD 1963 SCMR-17 (sic.). In the light of what has been discussed above, I am inclined to accept this appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 6-6-2014 of Additional Sessions Judge Gilgit and acquitted the accused/appellant from charge under section 13, A.O. in 27/13 of Police Station Pari Banglah. Order accordingly, File. HBT/13/GB Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.