Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Rashid Aziz Khan
1992 M L D 2195
1992 M L D 2195
[Lahore]
Before Rashid Aziz Khan, J
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No.24 of 1981, decided on 2nd March, 1991
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Recovery witnesses were not unanimous with regard to the date of recovery effected at the instance of accused and were at variance on that point which had created doubt regarding the recovery of knife‑‑‑Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
MA. Zafar for the Petitioner.
Shahbaz Saud Sajid for the State.
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1991.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner Muhammad Aslam was tried by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Magistrate Ist Class, Jauhraabad, District Sargodha, for an offence under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance, Learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 28‑4‑1980 convicted and sentenced the petitioner to two years' R.I. The convict appealed, which was dismissed by Mian Muhammad Niwaz Nikokar, Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha on 6‑1‑1981.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner was that he had got recovered a knife, for which he could not produce any licence, therefore, present case was registered against him. Further contended that the petitioner was already in custody in connection with a murder case, and during investigation of that case he was alleged to have produced knife. Argued that the prosecution in order to establish the recovery of knife at the instance of the petitioner had produced three witnesses, but the statements of all the witnesses were at variance and could not be relied upon.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. P.W.1 Niaz Muhammad stated that the petitioner had got recovered the knife on the day of incident, by which he meant the day the murder had taken place which was 16‑6‑1978. P.W.2 Muhammad Tufail, who was also a witness of the recovery of knife stated that the knife was got recovered from the petitioner three days after the occurrence. He had further stated that he had not seen the recovery being effected, but the police produced the knife before him and he signed the recovery memo. On the other hand, Said Amir S.H.O., P.W.3, stated that the petitioner while in custody led to the recovery of knife on 27‑6‑1978. After going through the evidence of all the witnesses, it is clear that they are not unanimous with regard to the date when the recovery was effected at the instance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, further informed that the recovery of knife at the instance of the petitioner was not relied upon by the trial. Court in the murder case as well. Since the statements of the witnesses are at variance, therefore, it creates doubt with regard to the recovery of knife. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt, I accept the petition and set aside the conviction of the petitioner The petitioner is on bail; his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
N.H.Q./M‑565/L. Petition accepted.