Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AZIZ ULLAH KHAN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSAMalik Nazir Hussain Awan,Tahir Mehmood Gondal
2002 Y L R 3055
2002 Y L R 3055
[Lahore]
Before Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ
AZIZ ULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Appellant
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.437 of 1999, heard on 2nd April, 2002.
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)‑--
‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑ Witnesses produced by prosecution were public servants, and had no background of ill- will or bitterness against accused so as to falsely implicate him in the case of such nature‑‑‑Witnesses had made consistent statements and no reason existed to disbelieve them as defence had failed to elicit anything favourable in cross‑examination of witnesses‑‑‑Weapon in question was found to be in working order and Forensic Science Laboratory had found that crime empty recovered from place of occurrence in connected murder case had been found to be wedded with weapon recovered from accused in the case‑‑‑Sentence passed against accused by Trial Court, being not excessive or oppressive, in circumstances of the case, same was upheld and maintained.
Malik Nazir Hussain Awan for Appellant.
Tahir Mehmood Gondal for the
Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2002.
JUDGMENT
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.‑‑ Aziz Ullah Khan appellant was convicted for In offence under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 vide, judgment dated 6‑5‑1999 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court No. II, Mianwali and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. The benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.
2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that during the investigation of a murder case the appellant had led to the recovery of a pistol 30 bore and seven live bullets on 20‑7‑1996 from the bedding inside the `Baithak' of his own house. Consequently F.I.R. No. 184 was registered at Police Station City, Mianwali on 20‑7‑1996 for an offence under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. After completion of investigation a challan was submitted and the learned trial Court framed a charge under section 13 of the West Pakistan, Arms Ordinance, 1965 against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
3. During the trial the prosecution produced five witnesses in support of its case against the appellant Muhammad Akram, A.S.I. (P.W.1) had recorded the formal F.I. R. and had kept a parcel in his custody. Muhammad Aslam, FC (P.W.2) had witnessed the recovery from the appellant. Rafi Ullah; A. S. I. (P.W.3) had effected the recovery from the appellant and had subsequently investigated this case. Habib Ullah, MHC (P.W.4) had also at one stage kept the parcel of the recovered articles in his custody in Malkham, Bahadar Khan (P. W. S) had taken the recovered articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their comparison. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant had denied and controverted the allegations levelled by the prosecution and had professed his innocence. The appellant had also denied the alleged recovery and his ownership of the recovered weapon. The appellant had, however, opted not to make any statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and he also did not produce any witness in his defence. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court found the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus; the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution has successfully brought the guilt of the appellant home and, therefore, the conviction as well as sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. After hearing the learned course, for the parties and going through the record we have noticed that the witnesses produced by the prosecution were all public servants who had no background of ill‑will or bitterness against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in a case of this nature. The said witnesses had made consistent statements and we have found no reason to disbelieve them as the defence had miserably failed to elicit anything favourable to it from the said witnesses in cross‑examination. The weapon in question was subsequently found to be working order as the Forensic Science Laboratory had found that the crime‑empty recovered from the place of occurrence in the connected murder case had been found to be wedded with the weapon recovered from the appellant in the present case. The sentence passed against the appellant by the learned trial Court has also not been found by us to be excessive or oppressive in the circumstances of this case.
6. For that has been discussed above this appeal is hereby dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and. maintained.
H.B.T./A‑500/L Appeal dismissed.