2012 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZEEM alias DODO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZEEM alias DODO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZEEM alias DODO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13(e)
Possessing unlicensed arm
Kalashnikov allegedly recovered on the pointation of accused was not sealed on the spot
Accused was led to the recovery of said Kalashnikov after 7 days of his arrest
Said Kalashnikov was dispatched for the Ballistic Expert opinion after about 8 days, but was received in the Division after about five months of said dispatch, for which there was no explanation on the record
Copy of daily diary, under which Police along with accused allegedly went to the place of recovery had not been produced
Accused had been acquitted in the main murder case while extending him benefit of doubt
Prosecution had failed to prove charge against accused
Accused was acquitted, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.
The appellant was tried and convicted vide judgment dated 31-8-2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in Sessions Case No.838 of 2008, in F.I.R bearing Crime No.77 of 2008 of Police Station Mouladad under section 13(e) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended in his favour.
2. In the nutshell, it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused while in custody of Mouladad Police led SIP Aijaz Ali Farooqui to the recovery of an unlicensed Kalashnikov allegedly used by him in the commission of crime viz., murder from dense bushes at the path of Jattak Wah (minor canal), situated at Naudhan diversion, with magazine in presence of private mashirs, namely, Khadim Hussain and Hamza Ali, both by caste Katohar.
3. From the perusal of the record it appears that the Kalashnikov allegedly recovered on the pointation of the appellant/accused was not sealed on the spot. The appellant was arrested on 7-10-2008 and he led to the recovery of the said Kalashnikov after seven days of his arrest i.e., on 14-10-2008. The Kalashnikov allegedly recovered on the pointation of the appellant was dispatched for the Ballistic Expert opinion on 22-10-2008, but was received in the said Division on 16-3-2009 i.e., after about five months of the said dispatch, for which there is no explanation on the record. Copy of daily diary, under which the police along with the appellant allegedly went to the place of recovery has also not been produced. Mashir Hamz Ali is related to the complainant of main murder case. In the case of Arif Khan v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1287, it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court that if the recovery memo did not show that the weapons were sealed at the spot, the case becomes doubtful. Furthermore, the appellant has been acquitted in the main murder case while extending him benefit of doubt. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the present charge against the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. H.B.T./M-147/K Appeal allowed.