2020 P Cr (PLP)

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid criminal appeal pertaining to the same incident. The Criminal Appeal No. 76/2016 filed by appellant Waheed Ali which pertains to Crime No. 321/2010 of Police Station Kotri under section 13-E, Arms Ordinance, which is a companion case of Sessions Case No.201/2010 (FIR 299/2010) in respect of recovery of unlicensed crime weapon allegedly used in the main case by the appellant Waheed Ali. Since, it is a companion case; therefore, it was also tried by the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No. 197/2011. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge came to conclusion that the case against the appellant is proved as such he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 25000/- and in case of default, he is required to undergo S.I. for six months more.

2. It is the prosecution case that appellant was already under custody in Crime No. 299/2010 (main case) with the charge of murder of one Ashfaque. During interrogation in the said case, appellant admitted his guilt and voluntarily offered to get recovered the crime weapon i.e. a pistol of .30 bore. On such disclosure, the police party arranged private witnesses and proceeded to the reported place. The appellant motioned to stop the police mobile nearby Mehran Bridge and led the police party towards some bushes from where he brought out a pistol of .30 bore and handed it over to the complainant SIP Ghulam Farooq Rahopoto. The requisite memo was prepared on the spot in the presence of private witnesses and thereafter the appellant/accused was brought back to police station where the FIR of the present case was lodged.

3. After investigation, the final report was submitted before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, who took cognizance of the case and since it was a company in case, the same was transmitted to the Sessions Court for its trial with the main case. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge came to conclusion that the case against the appellant is proved and he was convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment by submitting that since the appellant was already in custody; therefore, the entire episode is doubtful. According to him, recovery witnesses are neither independent nor impartial as scheduled deposition is not trustworthy. However, he frankly admits that the sentence awarded to the appellant has already been completed.

5. They learned APG submits that the recovery is established beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the finding of trial Court is not required any interference. She submits that relation or friendship of private witnesses with the complainant of the main case will not mar the evidence of those witnesses. She further submits that as the sentence awarded to the appellant has been completed; therefore, the instant appeal becomes infructuous.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the relevant record. I have observed that the prosecution witnesses are a firm in their deposition in respect of recovery of weapon i.e. a pistol of .30 bore on the pointation of appellant/accused. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any discrepancy and material contradiction in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. There is nothing on the record which may go against the prosecution witnesses especially private witnesses of the recovery of the weapon; therefore, there exists no reason to disbelieve them. Nevertheless, as per jail role, the sentence awarded to the appellant has already been completed, hence the instant criminal appeal becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed. SA/W-5/Sindh Appeal dismissed.