Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Mian Abdul KhaliqIjaz Hussain Batalvi and MA. Zafar,Abul Fateh for the State.
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1396
[Lahore]
Before Mian Abdul Khaliq, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.224 of 1986, decided on 30th September, 1992,
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)---
----S. 13---Appreciation of evidence---No respectable inhabitant of the locality had been associated with recovery proceedings--Place of recovery of the revolver was not shown to be in the exclusive possession of accused-- Possibility of the revolver having been planted on the accused in order to strengthen the connected murder case could not be ruled out---Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi and MA.
Zafar for Appellant. Abul Fateh for the State.
Date of hearing: 30th September, 1992.
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide his judgment, dated 24-9-1985 under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 to undergo R.I. for 3 years. He has impugned the validity of the decision by this appeal.
2. The prosecution case is that the appellant who was involved in a murder case led to the recovery of .32 bore revolver P.1 from the verandah of his Haveli on 15-7-1983 which P.W.3 Muhammad Rafique secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by P.W.2 Muhammad Aslam and P.W. Ataullah (given up).
3. The prosecution examined three prosecution witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W.1 while working as Moharrir Head Constable on 15-7-1983 received complaint Exh.PA. and on its basis recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1. P.W.2 Muhammad Aslam joined the investigation of the present case and in his presence the appellant had led to the recovery of .32 bore revolver P.1 from the verandah of his Haveli which P.W.3 secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by him. P.W.2 during cross-examination has stated that he could not refuse the police to join the recovery proceedings and also had not asked the police to join some respectable inhabitants of the locality. He further explained that he never knew either the place of recovery was in the populated locality of the village and the place of recovery inhabited by or in exclusive possession of the appellant. P.W.3 did not corroborate the contents of complaint Exh.P.A. and during cross-examination had stated that the revolver P.1 was licensed in the name of Muhammad Suleman, a co-accused in the connected murder case. However, he denied the suggestion that he had planted the revolver on the appellant after obtaining it from Muhammad Suleman, the licensee. He also stated during cross-examination that he had not joined any person from the locality in the investigation of the case.
4. P.W.3 had not joined any respectable inhabitant of the locality. Moreover, it has not been brought on the record that the place from where the recovery of revolver P.1 was effected, was in the exclusive possession of the appellant. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant has force that in order to strengthen the connected murder case, the revolver has been planted on the appellant.
5. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is allowed and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.
N.H.Q./M-1484/L Appeal allowed.