Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No.110 of 1982, decided on 15th May, 1982.

‑‑‑S.13‑‑Recovery evidence, reliability of‑‑Independent witnesses of public not supporting factum of recovery of stengun from possession of accused and no other evidence available to corroborate sole testimony of Police Officer on this point‑‑Police Officer being interested in prosecution of accused for showing Karwayee, held, could not be relied upon implicitly without being corroborated by some independent evidence of unimpeachable character‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances. ‑‑[Recovery‑‑Witness ] .

Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing:15th May, 1982. .

Abdul Sattar petitioner was convicted by Rai Muhammad Amin Khan, Magistrate Section 30, Sahiwal under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 for keeping in possession stengun P.1 without licence. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who while maintaining his conviction reduced the sentence being excessive to two years' R.I. vide his judgment, dated 8‑4‑1982. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court through this revision petition.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 4‑10‑1981 at 10‑30 p.m. Masood Ahmad Sub‑Inspector P.W.3 alongwith Muhammad Iqbal A.S.I. (P.W.1) and four constables and two witnesses namely, Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.1) and Abdullah P.W.2 was present at the bridge of canal distributor for detection of crime as usual. Meanwhile Abdul Sattar petitioner arrived there holding a stengun in his right hand. On seeing the police, he attempted to flee away but was apprehended there and then. The stengun P.1 was snatched from him by the raiding party, and was seized through memo. Exh. P.A. He drafted complaint. Exh. P.B and sent the same for registration of the case to the police Noor Shah where F.I.R. Exh. P.B/1 was drawn up on its basis. The petitioner was challaned after usual investigation.

3. At the trial prosecution produced P.W.1 Muhammad Iqbal, P.W.2 Muhammad Abdullah and P.W.3 Masood Ahmad, S. I. to prove the recovery of stengun P.1 from the possession of the petitioner. It may be mentioned that both the public witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The Sub‑Inspector however, did state that the stengun P.1 was recovered from the possession of the petitioner at the relevant time.

4. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the accused professed innocence and contended that he was licensee for arms repairs since November, 1980 and was involved in this case maliciously. He further stated that he went to Noor Shah to visit his relatives but was apprehended by the Thanedar on Pucca road and was challaned in this fabricated case. He produced defence and apart from producing certified copy of arms repairs licence Exh. D. A., he produced two witnesses, D.W.1 Bahawal Sher and D.W.2 Kallo who stated that the accused was a thorough gentleman and was embroiled in a cooked up case.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

6. Admittedly both the independent witnesses of public namely Muhammad Iqbal P.W.1 and Abdullah P.W.2 did not support the factum of recovery of stengun P.1 from the possession of the petitioner at the trial. They were declared hostile and cross‑examined but nothing favourable to the prosecution could be elicited. Both the lower Courts appear to have accepted the evidence of the police Sub‑Inspector and believing the recovery of stengun from the petitioner convicted him. The learned Additional Session Judge observed that since Masood Ahmad S.I. had no motive or malice to involve the petitioner, therefore, according to him the investigation carried out by this witness was fair, and he was as good a witness as any other member of the public.

7. On careful examination of the evidence on record, I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as by the trial Court are not unexceptionable. The prosecution case is one of a usual and fake Nakabandi which calls for a closer scrutiny by a Court of law as to its genuineness. The police officer appears to be interested in the prosecution of the petitioner who wanted to show his Karwayee. He cannot be relied upon implicitly without being corroborated by some independent evidence of unimpeachable character, which is badly wanting in this case.

8. For the foregoing reasons I entertain grave doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case, and therefore, I am disposed to interfere with the impugned order. The result is that the revision petition is accepted, conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted.

S. G. D. Acquittal ordered.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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