Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 1983, decided on 26th May, 1985.
---S.13--Prosecution witnesses quite independent having no ill-will against accused--No inherent infirmity found in statements of said witnesses--Accused not caring to rebut prosecution evidence-- Trial Court, held, rightly convicted accused--Conviction maintained.
Mian Aftab Farrukh for Appellant.
Kh. Shaukat Ali for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th May, 1985.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot whereby he on 31-3-1985 convicted Farooq Azam appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to six months R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he was keeping dagger P.I without any valid authority or permit.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses, out of whom Mahmood Ahmed P. W.1 and Muhammad Riaz S.H.O. P.W.3 stated that on 4-7-1982, the appellant .id led to the recovery of dagger P.1 from his residential house for which he has not having any licence or permit.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of dagger from him. He did not produce: any evidence in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the recovery witness are not reliable and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that Mahmood Ahmad P. W.1 and Muhammad Riaz P. W.3 are quite independent witnesses, having no ill-will with the appellant. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statement. The appellant did not care to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons I am satisfied that the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. It is, however, directed that the sentence awarded to Farooq Azam appellant in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in the main murder case.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer