IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2022

Appellant: Muhammad Raheel through Mr. Taj Fareen advocate

The State: Through Mr. Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 10.11.2022

Date of judgment: 10.11.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is the case of the prosecution that on arrest from the appellant was secured unlicensed mouser of 30 bore with magazine containing 02 live bullets of same bore which he was having while committing robbery, for that the present case was registered. On conclusion of trial, he was convicted under Section 3(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with benefit of section 382(b) Cr.P.C by learned X-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide judgment dated 31.05.2022, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police by foisting upon him unlicensed mouser and evidence of the P.Ws being doubtful has been relied upon by the learned trial Court without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant, which is opposed by learned Addl. P.G for the state by contending that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.

3. Heard arguments and perused the record.

4. It is stated by complainant ASI Sadiq Hussain that on the date of incident when he with his associates was conducting patrol within jurisdiction of PS Preedy, when reached at the place of incident found appellant apprehended by a mob, he was taken into custody and on search from him was secured robbed property and unlicensed mouser for that he was booked accordingly. His evidence takes support from evidence of P.W/mashir Muhammad Rasheed and I.O/ASI Asim Shahzad with positive forensic report. They have stood by their version on all material points despite lengthy cross-examination, they indeed were having no reason to have involved the appellant in this case falsely by foisting upon him the unlicensed pistol. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.

5. So for quantum of sentence is required, it needs to be modified for the reason that the appellant is young man of 21 years of age and said to be sole bread earner of his family, therefore, the sentenced awarded to him is reduced to 03 years with benefit of Section 382(b) Cr.P.C.

6-. Subject to above modification, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE