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.37 of 1982, decided on 17th February, 1985.
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Unlicensed gun‑‑No inherent infirmity existing in statements of prosecution witnesses‑‑Witnesses having no serious enmity with accused, successfully facing cross‑examination and accused unable to, rebut prosecution case and its evidence‑‑Conviction and sentence upheld.
Mian Mahmood Ali Qasuri and J.H. Shah for Appellant.
J.V. Gardener for the State.
Date of hearing: 17th February, 1985.
‑‑ This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum, whereby he on 23‑11‑1981 convicted Muhammd Saqlain appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. with the direction that the sentences would run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in the connected murder case.
2. The prosecution case was that after his arrest on 2‑4‑1981 in the connected murder case, the appellant got recovered his unlicensed gun Exh. P.1. He denied the allegation.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined two witnesses. Muhammad Khan P.W.1 stated that Muhammad Saqlain appellant while in police custody got recovered unlicensed gun Exh. P.1 from his house. Ghulam Murtaza S. I., supported him.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P.C., the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. He stated that gun was planted on him to strengthen the murder case. In defence he did not produce any evidences.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution evidence was not reliable and that the recovery was fake. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. We do not see any inherent infirmity in the statements of the two prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Khan and Ghulam Murtaza S.I. They had no serious enmity with the appellant. They have successfully faced the cross‑examination. The appellant has not been able to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons, we are convinced that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
7. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed.
M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer