IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-32 of 2019

Appellant Abdullah son of Yar Muhammad Katohar

Through Mr.Altaf Hussain Surahio, Advocate

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

Date of hearing:            19-01-2023       

Date of decision:            30-01-2023

JUDGMENT

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;- Through instant criminal jail appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 18.04.2019, rendered by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Jacobabad, in Sessions Case No.375/2013, emanating from FIR bearing Crime No.21/2013, for offence punishable U/S.23(i) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, registered with P.S, Dodapur, whereby he has been convicted for an offence punishable U/S.23(i) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC.

2. The case of prosecution as unfolded in the FIR lodged by complainant ASI Abdul Khalique are to the effect that on 20.08.2013, at about 0200 hours, complainant Wahid Bux of main Crime No.19/2013, U/S.302, 324, 452, 148, 149 PPC of P.S Dodapur, delivered custody of accused Aijaz and Abdullah alongwith crime weapons viz. DBBL, SBBL guns including recovery of four live cartridges of 12 bore from each. Such memo of arrest and recovery was prepared at the spot in presence of mashirs Anwar Ali and Abdul Wahab and on return to police station, the separate cases U/S.23 (i) (a) of 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.PC against the present appellant/accused. 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 two witnesses i.e Mashir Anwar Ali and Complainant/SIO ASI Abdul Khalique, who all produced certain documents and items in support of the prosecution case. Thereafter, learned State Counsel closed the side of prosecution.

5. In his statement recorded in terms of Section 342 Cr.PC, the appellant/accused 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.

7. Per learned defence counsel, the instant case is false and fabricated against present appellant/accused; that the evidence of complainant/I.O and mashir being contradictory have no credibility and thus cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration; that the recovery of alleged crime weapon has been foisted against appellant/accused just to strengthen 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 arraigned in this case on account of matrimonial dispute. 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 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 present appellant/accused in the commission of offence; 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.       Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the material made available on record with their able assistance.

10.     The re-appraisal of evidence brought on record established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant/accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring
evidence. To  prove the claim of taking custody of the present appellant/accused from complainant of main case together with recovery of an unlicensed weapon from him, the prosecution examined Complainant/SIO ASI Abdul Khalique and mashir Anwar Ali who in their evidence deposed that while posted at P.S Dodapur, complainant Wahid Bux and witnesses/mashirs produced apprehended accused Aijaz and Abdullah alongwith one SBBL and one DBBL Guns at 0200 hours and on search of both the accused, recovered four live cartridges of 12 bore from each and then prepared such  memo in presence of mashirs Anwar Ali and Abdul  Wahab and sealed both the weapons separately. Thereafter, they brought the accused and recovered case property at P.S and registered FIR under Sindh Arms Act. The complainant further deposed that he recorded statements of PWs and then sent the recovered weapons to Ballistic Expert and received such report. They both identified the accused and case property present in Court to be same. 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 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 of crime weapon from him. No material contradiction has even been pointed out in their evidence to base his acquittal. Moreover, the recovered crime weapon has been found in working condition as is evident from the FSL report (Exh.7/E). No any substance has been brought on record by the appellant/accused to justify his false involvement in present case at the hands of police officials. Further, the police officials are as good witnesses as any other citizen unless any malafide is established against them and their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the pretext that they belong to police department.

11.     During arguments, learned defence counsel pointed out some minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which in my humble 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 be some minor contradictions which always are available in each and every case, hence, the same are ignored, as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Zakir Khan V. The State (1995 SCMR-1793}.

12.     The over-all discussion involves conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge, holding the present appellant/accused guilty of alleged offence, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed no illegality or irregularity while recording conviction/sentence, which even otherwise does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the instant criminal jail appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly while the impugned judgment being well reasoned is maintained.

JUDGE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           .