Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal NO 899 of.1979, decided on 24^thNovember, 1980.

‑

----S. 410 read with West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13 ‑-- Appeal (criminal) --‑ Evidence, appreciation of-‑Admittedly no independent witness coming forward to depose against accused to establish alleged recovery of illicit rifle on pointing of accused --Held: Not safe to hold accused guilty on sole testimony of Police Officer‑Conviction set aside, in circumstances.-‑(Recovery].

Major Waheeduddin Virk for Appellant.

Arif Malik for the State.

Dates of hearing: 24th, 25th and 30th November, 1980.

.‑This appeal by Fazal Hussain, son of Shah Muhammad, aged 55 years, caste Kashmiri, resident of village Shabdiwal, tehsil and district Gujrat, is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, dated the 30th August, 1979, whereby he was convicted of the commission of offence punishable under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 (XX of 1965), for keeping in his possession 303 rifle and five bullets without a licence on the 28^thMay, 1972, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. According to the prosecution, Fazal Hussain, appellant, who was in police custody in connection with another murder case, got 303 rifle, Exh. P. 1, and five bullets, Exh. P. 2/1‑5, recovered from his house situate ‑in village Shabdiwal on the 28^thMay, 1972. Muhammad Ibrahim, Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police, P. W. 2, who supervised the recovery operation, took the rifle and bullets in his possession vide memorandum, Exh. P. A. which was attested by Ghulam Mustafa (P. W. 1) and Bashir Ahmad who were not residents of village Shabdiwal but belonged to distant different places. As the appellant had no licence to keep the arms and ammunition in his possession he was challaned for commission of offence punishable under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordi nance, 1965.

3. Ghulam Mustafa (P. W. 1) did not support the prosecution case before the learned trial Court. Bashir Ahmad, the other recovery witness, was not produced by the prosecution as he was alleged to have been won over by the appellant. It was only on the basis of the testimony of the Police Officer, Muhammad Ibrahim (P. W. 2), that the learned trial Court recorded conviction.

4. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, and not without reason, that it was not safe to hold the appellant guilty on the sole testimony of the police officer. Admittedly no independent witness came forward to depose against the appellant in support of the prosecution case. Therefore, the charge could not be said to have brought home to the appellant beyond a reasonable manner of doubt. It may be mentioned that the appellant way acquitted in the main murder case. The appeal is consequently accepted, the conviction of the appellant and the sentence awarded to him are set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail. He is discharged of the obligations attending to the bail bond executed by him.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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