IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR
Criminal Appeal No.S-90 of 2013
Appellant: Zameer, through
Mr. Shamsuddin N.
Kobhar, Advocate
State: Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad
Mahar,
Deputy Prosecutor
General
Date of hearing: 18.04.2022
Date of decision: 25.04.2022
J
U D G M E N T
Zulfiqar
Ali Sangi, J:
Through
this criminal appeal, appellant has
assailed the judgment dated 10.10.2013 (impugned herein) passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III Mirpur Mathelo in Sessions Case No.74/2008 re-“The
State v. Zameer”, arising out of Crime No.248/2008, registered at Police
Station Daharki, under Section 13(d) Arms Ordinance, 1965, whereby the appellant was
convicted under Section 13(d) Arms Ordinance and sentenced to suffer R.I for seven
years, however benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C was extended to him.
2. Concisely the facts of the prosecution case are that on
08.09.2008 complainant ASI Barkat Ali along with
his subordinate
staff during patrolling received telephonic
information from SHO
Police Station Daharki that accused Zameer
required in Crime
No.68/2008 is going with KK at Mangria Pump link
road leading
towards Dahar Wah bridge by foot, as such he
along with his
subordinate staff proceeded towards pointed
place where at about
2045 hours they apprehended the accused and an
unlicenced KK
and seven bullets were recovered from his
possession. Hence such
FIR was registered against him.
3.
After completing investigation challan
was submitted
against the accused before the Court having
jurisdiction. After
completing all the legal formalities, the trial
court framed charge
against the accused to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has
examined
PW-01 ASI Barkat Ali at Ex.4, who produced
mashirnama of arrest
and recovery, FIR and roznamcha entry at Exh.4-A
to 4-C, PW-2 HC Muhammad Khalid at
Exh.5, PW-3 ASI Allahdino at Exh.6, who
produced certificate of working condition of KK
at Ex.6-A. Thereafter
learned prosecutor closed the side of prosecution
vide his statement
at Ex.7.
5. Statement of accused
under Section 342 Cr.P.C was
recorded at Ex.8, in which he has denied the
allegations of the
prosecution and claimed his innocence. However,
neither he
examined himself on oath nor led any defence evidence.
After
recording evidence and hearing the parties,
learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the accused as stated
above, hence the
instant appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has
contended that
the Appellant is innocent and has falsely been
implicated by the
police in this case; that there are serious and
major contradictions in
the evidence of Complainant as well as PWs
(mashir); that there is
violation of section 103 Cr.P.C as despite prior
information the
complainant did not associate any private
witness or mashirs; that
evidence of prosecution witnesses is discrepant,
therefore, accused
may be acquitted of the charge by extending him
the benefit of the
doubt.
7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has mainly
contended that all the PWs have deposed in the
same line; that the
prosecution evidence is confidence inspiring.
Lastly he prayed that by
dismissing instant appeal, conviction and
sentence awarded to
appellant by the learned trial Court may be
maintained.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant
as well as
learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have
carefully examined the
material available on record with their able
assistance.
9. On reassessment of the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution it is established that the
prosecution has successfully
proved its case against the appellant beyond any
reasonable shadow
of doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and
confidence inspiring
evidence.
10. The prosecution to prove its case has examined two eye
witnesses i.e complainant ASI Barkat Ali and PW/
mashir HC Muhammad
Khalid who have fully supported the case of prosecution
nat on 08.09.2008 at about 2045 hours accused
Zameer was
arrested and one unlicensed Kalashnikov along
with a magazine and
seven live bullets of 7.62 bore were recovered
from him under
mashirnama. I.0 ASI Allah Dino also corroborated
the prosecution
case by producing the certificate regarding
working condition of the
recovered KK. They were cross-examined at length
but nothing could
be uttered from their mouths to favour the
appellant. However, on
careful scrutiny of the cross-examination of
witnesses it transpired
that they have given same answers to the
questions and suggestions
made on behalf of the appellant which established their presence at
the time of arrest and recovery. No major
contradiction is found in
their evidence.
11. The recovered weapon
was found in working condition.
No enmity with police has been established by
the appellant nor the appellant proved any malafide on the part of police for
his false
implication. The police officials are as good
witness as any other
citizen unless any malafide is established
against them, their
evidence cannot be brushed aside simply on the
ground that they
belong to police department.
12. During arguments
learned counsel for the appellant
pointed out some minor contradictions and
discrepancies in the
evidence of witnesses which in my view are not
sufficient to hold that
the case of prosecution is doubtful. It is
settled by now that, wherein
the evidence, prosecution established its case
beyond a reasonable
doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and
confidence inspiring
evidence then if there may some minor
contradictions which always
are available in each and every case such may be
ignored, as has
been held by Honourable Supreme Court in case of
Zakir Khan V.
The State {1995 SCMR 1793}.
13. For what has been
discussed above, I am inclined to
observe that the prosecution has successfully
proved its case against
the appellant, therefore, the Judgment dated
10.10.2013 being
impugned by the appellant herein, requires no
interference by this
Court, hence, its hereby maintained and the
present appeal being8
meritless is dismissed.
JUDGE
Suleman
Khan/PA