1993 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SULEMAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SULEMAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
person who made disclosure and led to alleged recovery of offensive weapon, admittedly not only was not a resident of locality where recovery was effected, but was also recovery witness of all recoveries made in connected murder case against accused
Statement of such person did not inspire confidence
No respectable of locality was associated in recovery proceedings despite the fact that place of recovery was a big village inhabited by many people including retired Government servants and army officers
Case against accused having not been proved, accused was acquitted of the charge.
Judgment & Decree
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi and MA. Zafar for Appellant. Abul Fateh for the State. Date of hearing: 30th September, 1992. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24-9-1985 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, by which he sentenced the appellant for 3 years' R.I. under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965.
2. The prosecution case is that on 8-7-1983 the appellant during investigation of a murder case made a disclosure and led to the recovery of unlicensed rifle P.1 from the room of his Haveli, which was secured by P.W.3 Muhammad Rafique vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by P.W.2 Rehmat Ali and P.W. Ataullah (given up).
3. The prosecution examined three prosecution witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W.1 drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 on the basis of the complaint Exh.PA. sent by P.W.3 to him on 15-7-1983. P.W.2 Rehmat Ali joined the investigation of the case and the appellant had led to the recovery of 7 mm rifle P.1 from his Haveli, which P.W.3 secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by P.W.2 and Ataullah P.W. (given up). P.W.3 Muhammad Rafique, S.I. interrogated the appellant on 8-7-1983 who made a disclosure and led to the recovery of 7 mm rifle P.1 from the room of his Haveli secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by P.W.2 Rehmat Ali. P.W.2 is not a resident of the locality from where the recovery of P.1 was effected. Moreover, he is recovery witness of all the recoveries made in the connected murder case. P.W.2 has stated during cross-examination that Mehta Suja, the place of recovery, is a big village inhabited by many people including the retired Government servants and army officers. The police had not summoned any respectable person of the locality to join recovery proceedings and the room from where the recovery of weapon P.1 was effected had no door. P.W.3 had corroborated the contents of complaint Exh.PA. and had stated that the place of recovery is situated in the Abadi of village Mehta Suja.
4. P.W3 had not associated any respectable of the locality in the recovery proceedings and P.W.2 participated in the recovery proceedings of the connected murder case and his statement does not inspire confidence. The upshot of the discussion is that the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail his bail bonds are discharged. H.B.T./M-698/L Appeal allowed.