Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No.275 of 1983, heard on 6th June, 1987.
---S.13--No witness of locality--Recovery of unlicensed gun Witness to recovery not resident of locality--No resident of locality produced as witness Investigation Officer, complainant in case, naturally interested in conviction of accused--Prosecution, held, had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt--Acquittal ordered in circumstances.
S.M. Latif Khosa for Appellant.
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi and Ch. Zafar Yaseen for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th June, 1987.
.--This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Khushab whereby he on 7-5-1983 convicted Khan Muhammad appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced him to one year R.I.
2. The charge against him was that he was found in possession of unlicensed .12 bore gun P.1 on 5-1-1982.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses namely Muhammad Yousaf, Head Constable PW.1, Fateh Khan PW.2 and Munir Ahmad S.I. PW.3. Muhammad Yousaf PW.1 had recorded the formal FIR whereas the two other witnesses stated that unlicensed gun P.1 was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The appellant denied the recovery of gun from him. In defence no witness was produced.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no witness of the locality was produced and as such the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. We find that Fateh Khan PW.2 was not residing at place of recovery and no person from the locality was joined to witness the recovery of the gun from the appellant and that Munir Ahmad ASI being the complainant in the case was naturally interested in the conviction of the appellant. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. For what has been said above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
S.A./K-30/L Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer