Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 517 of 1983, decided on 14th May, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Accused leading to recovery of unlicensed dagger‑‑Prosecution witnesses including Police Officer having no enmity with accused to falsely involve him‑‑No inherent infirmity found in statements of said witnesses‑‑Defence failing to rebut prosecution case and its evidence‑ Accused, held, had been rightly convicted by trial Court‑‑Conviction and sentence of two years' R.I. maintained‑‑Sentence ordered to run concurrently with sentence awarded in connected murder case.

Mian Aftab Farrukh for Appellant.

Shabbir Lali for the State

Date of hearing: 14th May, 1985.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, whereby on 3‑8‑1983 convicted Zahoor Ahmad appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I.

2. The charge against the appellant was that after his arrest in the connected murder case he led to the recovery of unlicensed dagger Exh. P.1 from the residential Kotha. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined Talib Hussain P. W.1 and Muhammad Aslam Khan, S.I. P.W.2. The witnesses stated that Zahoor Ahmad appellant had led to the recovery of unlicensed dagger Exh. P.1 from his residential Kotha.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. 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 Talib Hussain and Muhammad Aslam Khan, S.I., P. Ws. had no enmity with the appellant to involve him falsely in the case. The learned counsel has failed to point out any inherent infirmity in their statements. The learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons I am of the view that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court tinder section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.

7. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the sentence of 2 years awarded in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded in the connected murder case.

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.