Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Mian Abdul Khaliq Title: MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Appeal No, 670 of 1985 Date of Judgment:1992-10-12 Reported As: 1993 P Cr. L J 2588 Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24-9-1985 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, by which he sentenced the appellant for 3 years' R.I. Under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965. 2. The prosecution case is that on 8-7-1983 the appellant during investigation of a murder case made a disclosure and led to the recovery of unlicensed rifle P.1 from the room of his Haveli, which was secured by P.W.3 Muhammad Rafique vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by P.W.2 Rehmat Ali and P.W. Ataullah (given up). 3. The prosecution examined three prosecution witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W.1 drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 on the basis of the complaint Exh.PA. Sent by P.W.3 to him on 15-7-1983. P.W.2 Rehmat All joined the investigation of the case and the appellant had led to the recovery of 7 mm rifle P.1 from his Haveli, which P.W.3 secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by P.W.2 and Ataullah F.W. (given up). P.W.3 Muhammad Rafique, S.I. Interrogated the appellant on 8-7-1983 who made a disclosure and led to the recovery of 7 mm rifle P.1 from the room of his Haveli secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by P.W.2 Rehmat Ali. P.W.2 is not a resident of the locality from where the recovery of P.1 was effected. Moreover, he is recovery witness of all the recoveries made in the connected murder case. P.W.2 has stated during cross-examination that Mehta Suja, the place of recovery, is a big village inhabited by many people including the retired Government servants and army officers. The police had not summoned any respectable person of the locality to join recovery proceedings and the room from where the recovery of weapon P.1 was effected had no door. P.W.3 had, corroborated the contents of complaint Exh.PA. And had stated that the place of recovery is situated in the Abadi of village Mehta Suja.
---
## Page 2
4. P.W.3 had not associated any respectable of the locality in the recovery proceedings and P.W.2 participated in the recovery proceedings of the connected murder case and his statement does not inspire confidence. The upshot of the discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.