IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

CriminalAppeal No.S-108of 2018

Appellant Ghulam Nabi s/o Muhammad YousifKhoso

Through Mr.Amanullah Luhur,Advocate

The State:                      Through Mr.Aitbar Ali Bullo,D.P.G.

Date of hearing:            12-01-2023       

Date of decision:           23-01-2023

JUDGMENT

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;-The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2018, passed by learned 2^ndAdditional Sessions Judge, Mehar, in Sessions Case No.290/2018,outcome of FIR bearing Crime No.180/2018, for offence punishable U/S.25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, registered with P.S, B-Section Mehar, whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable U/S.25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default whereof to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case leading to disposal of instant criminal appeal are to the effect that on 07.07.2018, at about 1400 hours,on the lead of mashirs namely Nooruddin and Aslam Ali,the present appellant/accused alongwith co-accused Waheed was apprehended from link road leading from Bindo Stop towards Mangwani,by police party of P.S, B-Section, Mehar, led by complainant ASI Muhammad Paryal Samejo who recovered an unlicensed pistol of 30 bore with magazine containingsix live bullets from possession of present appellant/accused and a pistol of 30 bore with magazine containing four live bullets of same bore from the possession of co-accused Waheed, the same on query were said to be used by them while committing murder of Amjad Ali and Mohsin Ali. Such memo of arrest and recovery was prepared in presence of above named mashirs and on return to police station, the separate case(s)under Sindh Arms Act were registered against the accused on behalf of the State.

3. The investigating officer on completion of usual investigation submitted final report under section 173 Cr.P.C against the present appellant/accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate where the case papers were supplied to him under receipt and thecase on being sent up before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dadu, was then made over to learned trial Court for its disposal according to law where the formal charge was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.   

4. To prove the charge against the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined in all two witnesses i.eComplainant/SIO ASI Muhammad Paryaland the mashir Aslam Ali, who all produced certain documents and items in support of the prosecution case. Thereafter, the learned State Counsel closed the side of prosecution.

5. The present appellant/accused in his statement recorded in terms of Section 342 Cr.PC denied the allegations leveled against him by pleading his innocence. He, however,did not examine himself on oath in disproof of the charge nor led any evidence in his defence.

6. The learned trial Court on appraisal of the material brought on record and hearing counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the present appellant/accused vide judgment, as detailed above, which he has impugned before this Court by preferring the instant criminal appeal.

7. Per learned defence counsel, the instant case is false and fabricated against the present appellant/accused; that the evidence of complainant/I.O and mashir being contradictoryhave no credibility and thus cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration;that the recovery of alleged crime weapon has been foisted against the appellant/accused just to strengthen the main murder case at the behest of complainant party of main case. Summing up his contentions, the learned defence counsel submitted that the present accused has been arraignedin this case on account of earlier enmity over the land and fish pond. Lastly, he concluded that the case of prosecution is doubtful and has no foundation against the appellant/accused; therefore, he deserves to be acquitted in the circumstances of the case.

8.                In rebuttal to above, learned D.P.G for the State contended that all the witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution and no major contradiction is noticed in their evidence; that the recovery of crime weapon on analysis has substantiated the involvement of the present appellant/accused in commission of the incident; that the FSL report has fully supported the case of prosecution. Lastly, he submitted that the learned trial Court finding the appellant/accused guilty of the offence has rightly convicted and sentenced him by way of impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court, therefore, the appeal filed by him being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

9.                I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the material made available on the record with their able assistance.

10.              On re-assessment of the material brought on record it is established that the prosecution has successfullyproved its case against the appellant/accused beyond any reasonableshadowof doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring
evidence. To  substantiate the claim of recovery of an unlicensed weapon from the possession of the present appellant/accused, the prosecution examined Complainant/SIO ASI Muhammad Paryal who in his evidence deposed that on 07.07.2018, in pursuance of information given by the private mashirs, the present appellant/accused on being wanted in main Case/Crime No.59/2018, U/S.302 PPC, was arrested from Bindo stop to Mangwani and found in possession of an unlicensed Pistol of 30 bore with six live bullets of same bore, which was said to be used by him while committing murder of Amjad Ali and Mohsin Ali, the deceased of main murder case. Such memo of arrest and recovery was prepared in presence of mashirs Nooruddinand Aslam Ali and on return to police station, the instant case under Sindh Arms Act was registeredagainst him. He further added that he conducted investigation of the case in that he recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs, dispatched the crime weapon to the Ballistic Expert and on completion of usual investigation, submitted challan before the Court of law. Like disclosure has been made by mashir Aslam Ali Khoso in his evidence. Both of them were cross-examined by learned defence counsel but nothing came out from their mouth in favour of the  appellant/accused and have gave same answers to the questions and suggestionsmade on behalf of the appellant which established their presence atthe time of arrest and recovery of crime weapon from him. No material contradiction has even been found intheir evidence to base his acquittal. Moreover, the recovered crime weapon has been found in working condition as is evident from the FSL report (Exh.4/F).No any substance has been brought on record by the appellant/accused to justify his false involvement in the present case at the hands of police officials. Further, the police official are as good witnesses as any othercitizen unless any malafide is established against them and theirevidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that theybelong to police department.

11.              During arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/accusedpointed out some minor contradictions and discrepancies in theevidence of witnesses which in my humble view are not sufficient to hold thatthe case of prosecution is doubtful. It is settled by now that, whereinthe evidence, prosecution established its case beyond a reasonabledoubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiringevidence then if there may be some minor contradictions which alwaysare available in each and every case, hence, the same may be ignored, as hasbeen held by the Hon’bleSupremeCourt in case of Zakir Khan V.The State(1995 SCMR 1793}.

12.               The sequel of above discussion is that the prosecution has successfully established the case holding the present appellant/accused guilt of the alleged offence, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed no illegality or irregularity while recording conviction and sentence, which even otherwise does not call for any interference by thisCourt. Consequently, the instant criminal appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed accordingly and the impugned judgment being well reasoned shall hold the field.

JUDGE