Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 459. In this matter between Criminal Appeal 459/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - SALMAN S/O ABDUR REHMAN (Appellant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Criminal Appeal 459/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2025 SHC KHI 3366 PARTIES: SALMAN S/O ABDUR REHMAN (Appellant) ORDER DATE: 12-MAR-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ tB3 , tN THE HoNoRAircnen couRT oF stNDH AT KARAoHI criminatAppealnr..Q;{ /2024' Salman Slo Abdur Rehman, FRc-:S€NTEO Olt ..?9.:.9.8::?93.k.. Mustin, Adutt, R/o l.lorangi, Mehrfn TPYn' 9- furifrl*n, mfr#, 4k^1'b 42"- Central Jait Karachi """"""""' """' Appellant 0epu 35lo Versus fhe State ResPondent FIR No'26t1/2023' u/s.23 (i) A, s'A' A' 2O1 3 . PS. KA, l(anchi' i 2t ta -t OF I CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 410 OF Cr'P'C ACT 1'?3

tBq THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI Appellant Respondent 12-03-2025 12-03-2025 Criminal Appeal No'459 ot2024 [Salman vs. Tire State] : through Mr' Ajab Khan Khattak, advocate ) ]an Ali ]unejo, I.- The Present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the eppLtUnt (accused), challenging the ]udgment dated g1..05.2024 (here-in-after referted to as the lmpugned ludytent) passed by the Court of leamed IVtl'r Additional Sessions ]udge, Karachi-East (here-in-after referred to as the learned Tial Cwrt) in Sessions Case No.430 of 2024 (fhe State vs. Salman), whereby the learned trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 23(1)(a), of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/-' In case of default of fine amount, the Appellant shall suJfer S.I. for two months. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the Appellant. 2. According to the prosecutior; on 19-02-2023 at 0850 hours, at a Vacant Plot, near Jalal Chowk, Mehran Town, Sector 6/E, KIA, Karachi, the complainant ASf Mazhar Hayat of P.S. K'I'A' Karachi apprehended the appellant Salman and recovered one unliceased 30-bore pistol along with five live bullets and cash amount of Rs.1,00,000 /- from his possession. FIR No. 264/2023 was registered against him under Section 23(il(A) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. After completion of the investigatiory the chalge Date of hearing Date of Judgment Syed N{umtaz Ali Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General . IUDGMENT

tBt t2I sheet was submitted, and the trial commenced. During the h'iaI, the prosecution examined the following witoresses and produced documentary evidence: I Pl r-1 ASI Mazhar Hayat (complainant[ who produced: . Exh4: Roznamcha (dai1y police cliary) entry' . Extr-S: Memo of arrest and recovery (allegedly prepared at the sPot). I . Exh6: FIR (No. 264/2023). : . Exh-7: Roznamcha entry (post-recoveryz documentation). . Exh-8: Memo of Place of incident. J II/'I-ZPCHanza I(han (mashir of mem;s) His testimony was recorded as Exh-9.c PW-3 SIP Muhammad Nloosa Kl,,o (lnvestigating Officer), who produced: Followin$ the conclusion of the prosecution's case' the Appellant's statement was recorded undel Section 342 of the Giminal Procedure Code (CI.P.C.), during which he refuted ali allegations leveled agalnst him and sought a fair resolution' The Appellant chose not to exercise his right to testiJy under oath pursuant to Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., and declined to present any evidence in his defense. Subsequently, the trial Court, based solely on the prosecution's evidentiaiy subhrissions, found the Appeliant guilty and issued a conviction thlough the impugned Judgment dated May 31',2024 followed by sentence' 3. The learned courisel for the Appellant contends that the leamed trial Court has erred both on facts and 'law while i . Exh-104 Roznamcha eqtrY No' l. . Exh-10/B: Roznamcha entrY No. 14. . Exh-L0/C: Police letter (for FSL dispatch). . Exh-10/D: FSL report (con{irnring the weapon's . Exh-10/E: Photograph (snap) of *ie recovered pistol' .J * ('r 'r

(gL lt \ recording the judgment, rendering it legally fiawed' He fur' ftl$ argues that the alleged recovery from i the appellant ] tp contradictory, thereby casting grave doubt on the plosecutiolitF case. He asserts that the trial Judge failed to appreciate:ttre rr,andatory requirement of Section 1O3 CI'P'C'' which mand:ates the presence of independent witnesses durir-rg recovery/ a lapse that vitiates the proceedings' Add'itionally' he highlights that the trial Judge overlooked major contradictions in the testimonies' of prosecution witnesses, including discrepancies betlveen ;the recovelysketchandtheFsLreport,lwhichirreparal-:ly 'undermine the prosecutioris version' He dmphasizes that'the trial iudge failed to consider the appellant's acquittal in the maln case(CrimeNo.1714/23underSectionsSgslsgTPPC)'acritical omission that further weakens the prosecution s credibility He shesses that all prosecution wiktesses (PWs) are police officiald' withnoprivatewitnessassociated,violatingprincipiesof faimess and corroboration' He contends that the prosecutioflo case is riddled with material contradictions' rendering t' it ilherently urueliable, yet the trial Judge oPted to convict the appellantwithoutaddressingthesefatalflaws.Hef"t'!r:sr argues ttrat the impugned judgment is non-speaking' lac(p;g co ut + veI + .(, li) c ) cogent re'asoning and failing to wei$h the absenc independent corroboration for police testimony' a legal neces in such cases. Cumulatively, he submits that these errors waxr setting aside the conviction and granting the appellant ' flre benefit of doubt. , 4. Per contra, the learned Additionali Prosecutor Gerlepil ,, Ill (APG) has argued that the prosecution had successfillly 1ow of :'loiibi established the accused's guilt beyond adt/ shar ) through credible and corroborative evidenge' The testimonies cif the complainant, mashir, and lnvestigating Officer wei'e consistent, confidence-inspiring, and remair.red unshaken durihg

tB+ Y. UJ cross-examlnation. The FSL report confirmed that the t"to""i"d weapon was in working conditiory further strengtheningi the prosecution's case' The APG cor-rtended that police witnesSes ale as reliable as independent witnesses unless en to have acted with malice, and the absence of private witnesses dicl trot weaken thc case. The prompt registration of the FIR, ProPer witnesses: documentation, and absence of maior contradictions reinJorced the prosecution's stance' Additionaliy' the AfG emphasized tiiat illegai possession of firearms contributes lto crime' and t th9 u..or"d faileid to Present any defense evidence or testify undpl oath, further undermining his plea of false implication Citlng legal precedents, the APG asserted that minor discrepancieq do not invalidate a prosecution case and' therefore' urged this C{}qt to dismiss the appeal and uphold the corviction and ser-ttence' - 5. Upon a detailed examination of the sqbmissrons preseflted by the appellant's counsel and the State's Additional Prosecutol General (APG), coupled with a rigorous scrutiny ol tne.11s1 , .".ord, the following critical findings and rational conclusions emerge: The Complainant' ASI Mazhar Hayat' expli'citly identified,,six individuals,, (Abdul1ah, Salman, Ulraiclullalr, Umar, Kashif, and Adnan) as having beLn arrested On' tlig contrary, PC Hamza Khan's testimony referencecl only " three an-estees" (Ubaidullah, Umar' and Kamran} and also omitted the appellant's name. This gtaring inlonsistency in iclentifying the accused-coupled with the mashir's failule to name Salman-' casts significant doubt on the apPellant's aileged involvenrurb' or presence at the scene' The prosecution's case is fqlther weakened by a direct contradiction between the ttt'o primarry ASI Mazhar Hayat claimed "six arrests"' while !C HamzaKhan cited "five arrests" ' Such a material ilconsish:nc1r undermines the credibility of the prosecution's narratirre 'and raises questions about the accuracy of the entire account' Llhe t4l t/'il

lgs I , \ NG ? r rQ , '-\ cour }-s )V FI& Memo of arrest and recovery and Letter dated: 20-02-20i23. issued by the I.O. to the AIGP, Forensic Deiartment, I(arachi for ' ;,1 FSL examinadon do not show the number'of pistol. However, ii: " when the seal of the pistol was opened at FSL, it was found to have serial number 39184. The "FSL report"i highiighted tnai ihe recovered pistol bore a "serial number 99184". However,'qlis critical detail was "never docrrmented" il the official arrest/recovery memo, nor corroborate{ by any wifoiess testimony. The absence of this important iriformation about the foundational aspect/identity of the pistol bearing serial number, further eroding trust in the prosecution', "'oid"n.u. "ASI Mazhar Hayat" asserted that the police team arrivedl at the scene at 1'0F30 hours" and left the station on "ig-OZ-zoz3 at 0210 hours".'[r'r contrast, "PC Hamza Khan" stated * *u* arrived ul ,O,UrU Irours" and departed the station at "2000 houts on 19-02-2C?3", implying an arrival on "20-02-2023" due to the midnight date transition. These irreconcilable timelines create confusiou abo,ul the sequence of events and the reliability of wihress accotlllts. The totality of these contradictions - "failure to name ,'t!e appe1lant'', "con{licting arrest figff es", "uiuepolicrJ. tarnperin g of evidence", and "chronologkal inconsistencies" - collectiveiy clisinantle the prosecution's version of events. Such n'rateliai discrepancies in core aspects of the case,rencler the evictence untrustworthy and insufficient to meet the burden of proof requfued for conviction. The prosecution si failure to prcsent. a coheren! consistent nauative foulded on verifiable fects, fata,liy undermines its credibility, thereby warranting selious cloEbt about the appellands culpability. MorJover, although.,lh-g incident occurred in a densely populated irea during morning hours, the tomplainant/Assistant Sub-lnspector (ASI) mailc no attempt to involve indepeniLent witnesses to observe thc .ureqt or the recovery process. This failure to associate independent witnesses, despite the public setting, raises questions aboqt

ts1 f t6l procedrual compliance/ as'such st€Ps are .typically critical to ensuring transParency in law enforcedrent actions' The inconsistencies identified are not minor or peripheral but strike at the heart of the prosecution's claims. Moreover, the Appellant has already been acquitted in main Crime No.1714/2023 urrder Sections 3g5/gg7 PPC vide Judgment daleC,: 16-02-2024' In light of ttiese rational findings, the case against appellant is not made out. 6. It is a foundational principie of criininal iarv that. the prosecution must establish Surlt beyond a reasonable doubt, wittr even the slightest uncertainty favoring the accused' In a parailel scenario, as observed in Muhatnmail Tlamilani o. The State (2018 yLF. 268n, thig Court acquifted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt in a case under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. This position is further corroborated by the llononrable Supreme Courl of Pakistar/s nitng rnSaiian Solangi o. The Stale (2019 SCMR 8114), which underscores the imperative of adhering to this standard. , 7. For the foregoing reasons, the In'rp'ugned Judgment dated 3L45-2024, rendered by the Trial Court, is deemed legally untenable and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the conviction and sentenie imposed on the appellant, Salman, under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sihdh Arms Act, 2013, are overtumed. He is acquitted of the charges and shall be released irnrnediately, i urrless lawfully detained in' connection with any other pendilc I case. I i

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant