IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-13 of 2019

Appellant: Manthar son of Abdul Nabi Suhundro

Through Mr.Rafique Ahmed K.Abro, Advocate

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

Date of hearing:            09-02-2023 & 20-02-2023 

Date of decision:           06-03-2023

JUDGMENT

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;- The listed criminal jail appeal impugns the judgment dated 12.02.2019, delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in Sessions Case No.269/2016, emanating from FIR bearing Crime No.64/2016, for offence punishable U/S.23 (i) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, registered with P.S, A/C Section Thull, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for an offence punishable U/S.23 (i) (a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to suffer R.I for three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default whereof, to suffer S.I for one month, with benefit of  Section 382-B Cr.PC.

2. The allegation against the appellant/accused as per FIR is to the effect that on 27.04.2016, at about 1230 hours, a police party of P.S A/C Section, Thull, headed by complainant ASI Jaffar Ali while setting out from Police Station for investigation of Crime No.57/2016, offence U/S.324, 353 PPC and Crime No.59/2016, offence U/S.302, 404, 34 PPC on receipt of spy information apprehended the present appellant/accused from near Ali Shah Bridge and secured an unlicensed T.T Pistol of 30 bore with magazine containing five live bullets. Such memo of arrest and recovery was prepared in presence of mashirs and on return to police station, the instant case for an offence punishable U/S.23 (i) (a) of Sindh Arms Act was registered against him on behalf of the State and subsequently challaned. 

3. The formal charge was framed against the present appellant/accused, 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 Complainant ASI Jaffar Ali and Mashir PC Khamiso Khan, who all produced certain documents and items in support of their statements. 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  establish the guilt against appellant/accused, the prosecution examined Complainant/SIO/ASI Jaffar Ali and Mashir PC Khamiso Khan who supported the recovery of an unlicensed T.T Pistol of 30 bore with  magazine containing four live bullets from the possession of present appellant/accused and thus produced memo of arrest/recovery, FIR and FSL 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 gave same answers to the questions and suggestions made on behalf of the appellant/accused 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.5/C). 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 course of 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, where in 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.     Consequent upon above discussion that the learned trial Court finding present appellant/accused as guilty of the charged offence, has committed no illegality or irregularity while recording conviction/sentence, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the instant criminal jail appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           .