Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.188 of 1982, decided on 30th April, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Investigating Officer and one recovery witness supporting prosecution case‑‑Recovery witness from public neither Lambardar nor a councillor‑‑Father‑in‑law of recovery witness was challaned for murder of uncle of accused a year ago‑‑Both prosecution witnesses making consistent statements during trial‑‑No discrepancy found in their statements‑‑Even if recovery witness from public be held to be interested witness against accused, even then nothing could be found to disbelieve Investigating Officer‑‑Conviction maintained in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Accused acquitted in main murder case‑‑Trial Court convicting accused under Arms Ordinance, 1965, but suspending sentence of accused on same day and allowing him bail to enable him to file appeal in High Court‑‑Bail of accused confirmed afterwards‑‑Held, accused having been acquitted in main murder case, it would not be proper to send him to prison to serve sentence under Arms Ordinance, 1965‑‑Accused remaining in judicial lock‑up during trial for along time‑‑Period for which accused remained in judicial lock‑up considered as sentence of imprisonment in case under Arms Ordinance in circumstances.

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi and M.A. Zafar for Appellant.

Ch. Sabir for A.‑G. for the State.

Dates of hearing: 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd April, 1985.

QURBAN SADIQ IKRAM, J.

‑‑ This is an appeal by Ahmad. Sher against his conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide judgment, dated 27‑3‑1982 by which he was sentenced to one year's R.I. under section 13, Arms Ordinance of 1965.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Ahmad Sher accused was required by the Police in a murder case. He was arrested on 25‑2‑1980 from the Dera of one Muhammad Ishaque. At that time the accused was seen lying on a cot, with his head on a pillow. At the time of his arrest, gun P.1 was found lying under the said pillow. On personal search three cartridges P.2/1‑3 were recovered from his pocket. The gun and the cartridges were taken in possession by S.I. Ghulam Qasim, P.W.2, vide memo. Exh.P.A. attested by Muhammad Sher, P.W.1 and Murid Hussain given up P.W. The accused had no licence for this gun and, therefore, was challaned under the Arms Ordinance.

The prosecution, during the trial, examined Muhammad Sher, P.W.1 and S.I. Ghulam Qasim, P.W.2 in support of its case. Ahmad Sher, accused in his statement denied the recovery but did not produce any evidence in defence.

Muhammad Sher, P.W.1 supported the prosecution case in his evidence during the trial. It was admitted by him in cross‑examination that he was neither a Lambardar nor a councillor. He further admitted that his first cousin Nadir who was also his father‑in‑law was challaned in 1979 for the murder of Muhammad Khan, a maternal uncle of Ahmad Sher, accused. He also admitted that one Gul Haider defeated him in Local Council by election who was supported by Ahmad Sher, accused. Both the prosecution witnesses made consistent statements during the trial. There was no discrepancy in their statements. Even if Muhammad Sher, P.W. is held to be interested against Ahmad Sher, accused, then also we find nothing to disbelieve S.I. Ghulam Qasim, P.W.2. In our view, the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of this gun from the accused.

3. Ahmad Sher, accused /appellant was acquitted in the main murder case. He was convicted in this case on 27‑3‑1982 and the learned trial Judge on that very day allowed him interim bail by suspending his sentence to enable him to file an appeal in this Court. This bail was confirmed on 13‑4‑1982. The appellant having been acquitted in the main murder case, we do not think it proper to send him back to prison to serve sentence under the impugned judgment. We, therefore, maintain his conviction under section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965. Ahmad Sher appellant was in judicial lock‑up during the trial for quite a long time. The period for which he remained in judicial lock‑up will be considered as sentence of imprisonment in this case plus a fine of Rs.500 or in default two months' R.I. The appeal is dismissed subject to above modification.

The appellant will deposit the fine within thirty days of this order.

H. A. K.

Appeal dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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