Possession of illegal weapon

2025 YLR 277 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 15Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidence

Prosecution case was that during investigation in case registered under Ss.302, 324 & 34, P.P.C, on the pointation of accused persons one unlicensed repeater and one 30-bore pistol were recovered

Record showed that the appellants after being nominated in the main case remained fugitive from law and they along with other co-accused of the case were arrested on 14.04.2018

As per evidence of recovery witness on 16.04.2018 the appellants led the police party to the cattle-shed of his house and brought out a pistol 30 bore and .12 repeater from the husk and the same was taken on the basis of recovery memo

Witness was put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing favourable was brought on record to discard his testimony

Recovery memo was exhibited without any objection from the appellants and thereby went un-rebutted

Similarly, weapons of offence were produced before the Court and the evidence recorded in the main case confirmed that the same weapons were used in the commission of offence

Nothing was brought on record to discredit the testimony of prosecution witnesses

Appellants could not produce any license of the weapon nor any defense was produced to show that the weapons so recovered were foisted against them

Thus, appellants had failed to point out any material or glaring contradictions or loopholes for disbelieving the recovery of crime weapon recovered upon their pointation

Circumstances established that the prosecution had convincingly proved the commission of offence by the accused in the main case and during the process they pointed out the weapon of offence used in the crime, hence the Trial Court was correct to award the impugned sentence

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 YLR 2601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(A)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtNon-association of private witnesses at the time of arrest and recovery processEffectAccused was charged for having illicit weapon i.e. pistol 30-bore and live bullets

Although the incident occurred in a densely populated area during morning hours, the complainant made no attempt to involve independent witnesses to observe the arrest or the recovery process

Such failure to associate independent witnesses, despite the public setting, raised questions about procedural compliance, as such steps were typically critical to ensuring transparency in law enforcement actions

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2025 YLR 2601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(a)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtContradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnessesAccused was charged for having illicit weapon i.e., pistol .30-bore and live bulletsComplainant explicitly identified six individuals as having been arrestedNotably, the appellant in the case was never mentioned in the complainant's testimonySimilarly, Police Constable's testimony referenced only three arrestees and also omitted the appellant's name

Such glaring inconsistency in identifying the accused coupled with the complainant's failure to name appellant casted significant doubt on the appellant's alleged involvement or presence at the scene

Prosecution's case was further weakened by a direct contradiction between the two primary witnesses

Complainant claimed six arrests, while Police Constable cited five arrests

Such a material inconsistency undermined the credibility of the prosecution's narrative and raised questions about the accuracy of the entire account

Forensic Science Laboratory Report highlighted that the recovered pistol bore a rubbed serial number

However, that critical detail was never documented in the official arrest/recovery memo, nor corroborated by any witness testimony

Absence of that information in the foundational records suggested either procedural negligence or potential fabrication, further eroding trust in the prosecution's evidence

Complainant asserted that the police team arrived at the scene at 06.30 pm and left the station on 19-02-2023 at 02.10 pm

In contrast, Police Constable stated the team arrived at 06.25 pm and departed the station at 08.00 pm on 19-02-2023, implying an arrival on 20-02-2023 due to the midnight date transition

Said irreconcilable timelines created confusion about the sequence of events and the reliability of witness accounts

Totality of these contradictions, failure to name the appellant, conflicting arrest figures, unreported tampering of evidence and chronological inconsistencies collectively dismantled the prosecution's version of events

Such material discrepancies in core aspects of the case rendered the evidence untrustworthy and insufficient to meet the burden of proof required for conviction

Prosecution's failure to present a coherent, consistent narrative founded on verifiable facts fatally undermined its credibility, thereby warranting serious doubt about the appellant's culpability

Inconsistencies identified were not minor or peripheral but struck at the heart of the prosecution's claims

Moreover, the appellant had already been acquitted in main crime under Sections 395/397, P.P.C

In light of those rational findings, the case against appellant could not withstand judicial scrutiny and the charges lacked the evidentiary foundation necessary to sustain a conviction

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2025 YLR 2364 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 24Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubt

Accused was charged for having in his possession TT pistol with magazine containing two live bullets of 30-bore, allegedly used in a crime registered under Ss. 302, 148 & 149, P.P.C

From perusal of the record it appeared that the police party headed by complainant claimed to have left the police station under Roznamcha entry No.11, at 04.00 pm of 18.9.2018; however, at trial the complainant failed to produce departure or arrival entries to substantiate his plea that he had actually left the police station on the relevant date and time

Moreover, per claim of complainant, the case property was kept by him in safe custody in Malkhana of Police Station and recorded such entry in the relevant Register; however, he failed to produce on record such entry during the trial

Complainant's further claim was that after getting permission he sent the parcels containing case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory, however, neither he disclosed the dispatch official nor any one was examined at the trial

Daily diary entry through which the police allegedly had left Police Station for the purpose mentioned under the FIR was not produced in evidence at the time of trial

Non-production of such vital document by the Investigating Officer at the time of trial showed that they had not left the police station for the purpose mentioned under the memo of recovery and arrest as well as the FIR

Hence, either the offence as alleged had not occurred or the police completed/prepared all the formalities at police station only to strengthen the rope of main case

Trial Court did not bother to discuss that essential aspect of the case while awarding conviction to appellant neither the prosecution justified their claim in that regard

If the contents of FIR might be presumed to be true that the appellant was found in possession of an unlicensed pistol which obviously was a cognizable offence, yet the weapon allegedly shown to have been recovered from his possession was not the weapon through which he allegedly had committed murder of the deceased in the main case

Hence, instant case should not be termed as an offshoot of main crime

Complainant admitted in cross-examination that the mashirs, who were related to the complainant of murder case, were arranged by said complainant and further that both private mashirs were picked up by him from the way while going to place of recovery

In that context, the mashir stated in his examination-in-chief that he and co-mashir were standing near place of recovery

Such infirmities in the prosecution case created reasonable doubt about the guilt of applicant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2025 MLD 597 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.23(1)(a)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidencePresent case offshoot of another caseAcquittal recorded in other caseEffect

Prosecution case was that an unlicensed pistol with magazine containing 03 live bullets was recovered from the possession of accused

From the perusal of the record it appeared that the recovery shown from the appellant originated from the incident of case for the offence under S.365-B, P.P.C, alleging abduction of wife of complainant of that case by the appellant and his brother on gunpoint in a car

However, due to accident of the car, the appellant was apprehended along with pistol being allegedly carried by him and was produced before police

Record transpired that the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant, mainly for the reason that alleged abductee did not support the prosecution case, stating that no such incident had occurred

Surprisingly, the Trial Court, on one hand, believing the evidence of alleged abductee, acquitted the appellant of the charge of abduction, then the question was on what basis the evidence of mashir/eye-witness, who had produced the appellant before police claiming to have apprehended him along with the weapon after the incident of abduction, was believed

Trial Court had not properly appreciated the entire material and had not applied judicious mind to evaluate/appreciate the facts and circumstances of case in hand

In such circumstances, the other oral and documentary evidence brought on record, was of no effect, rather, the very recovery of offensive weapon became doubtful

Since the appellant had been acquitted from the charge of main case, the propriety of law demanded that the appellant should also be acquitted from the charge of present case, which was offshoot of main case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 PCrLJ 958 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(a)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubt

Prosecution case was that a .30-bore revolver with three live bullets was recovered from the possession of accused, he failed to produce its licence

Accused was arrested from the busy road but complainant failed to associate private persons for making them as mashirs in the case

Complainant was examined and in his cross-examination he had admitted that the words N-35 and .32 bore were written on the revolver but mashirnama of arrest and recovery was silent with regard to such description of revolver

In the mashirnama of arrest and recovery, nowhere it was mentioned that the number of revolver was rubbed but the Ballistic Expert in his report had clearly mentioned that the number of revolver was rubbed

During investigation, the Investigating Officer failed to interrogate/investigate as to why the accused was going armed with revolver at the odd hours of the night.

2023 PCrLJ 958 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(a)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceSafe custody and transmission of weapon from the police to the Ballistic Expert not establishedScope

Prosecution case was that a .30-bore revolver with three live bullets was recovered from the possession of accused, he failed to produce its licence

According to complainant, after arrest and recovery, he brought the accused to the Police Station and kept the revolver in the Malkhana of Police Station but such entry of the Malkhana had not been produced before the trial court

Incharge Malkhana was also not examined before the trial court

Weapon was sent to the Ballistic Expert through Police Constable but said Police Constable had also not been examined by the prosecution

Safe custody and safe transmission of the weapon to the Ballistic Expert had not been established, in circumstances.

2023 PCrLJ 958 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(a)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidencePolice witnessesScope

Prosecution case was that a .30-bore revolver with three live bullets was recovered from the possession of accused, he failed to produce its licence

Accused had claimed false implication in the case

Evidence of the Police Officials without independent corroboration was unsafe to be relied upon

Police caught hold the accused and he did not open any fire upon Police or in air and easily surrendered before Police

Evidence of Police Officials could not be discarded simply because they belonged to Police force, however, the fate of the accused person hinged upon the testimony of Police Officials alone, it was necessary to find out if there was any possibility of securing independent persons at that time

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 PCrLJ 958 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(a)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceDelay of nine days in sending the weapon to the Ballistic ExpertScope

Prosecution case was that a .30-bore revolver with three live bullets was recovered from the possession of accused, he failed to produce its licence

There was nine days delay in sending weapon to the Ballistic Expert

Prosecution had failed to explain such delay

Positive report of the Ballistic Expert would not improve the case of prosecution, in circumstances.

2023 PCrLJ 462 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(a)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtProsecution case was that 12-bore pistol and two cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accusedRecord reflected that police made no efforts to associate any private person to witness the recovery proceedingsThough the availability of private persons during morning hours around the place of recovery could not be ruled out

Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C., were not attracted to the case of personal search but in the present case, omission to take independent mashirs could not be brushed aside lightly

Preparation of ma?hirnama was not a formality but it's object was to prevent unfair dealings

Record showed that according to prosecution witnesses in the mashirnama it was mentioned that the pistol without number and two (02) cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused for which he had no licence

Description of the pistol and company of the cartridges had not been mentioned in the mashirnama

Property was also not marked by the Investigation Officer

Report of the Ballistic Expert reflected that the Expert had received five (05) cartridges along with pistol when only two (02) cartridges were secured from the possession of accused, according to the case of prosecution

As to how said three (03) more cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert had not been explained

Prosecution had no explanation for such ambiguity

Case property was sent to the Ballistic Expert through Police Constable but he had not been examined

Incharge of Malkhana was also not produced before the Trial Court to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the weapon to the expert, which was the requirement of law

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 PCrLJ 462 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 23(1)(a)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidencePolice witnessesScopeEvidence of the Police Officials could not be discarded simply because they belonged to police force

Where the fate of the accused persons hinged upon the testimony of Police Officials alone, it was necessary to find out if there was any possibility of securing independent persons at the relevant time

In the present case, availability of the private witnesses could have been easily arranged, but it was avoided by police

Accused in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., had claimed false implication in the case

Evidence of the Police Officials without independent corroboration would be unsafe for maintaining the conviction, in circumstances.

2022 MLD 1298 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.23(1)APossession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtAdmission of accusedScope

Prosecution case was that 30-bore pistols were recovered from the possession of accused and accused failed to produce licence of recovered weapons

Evidence of prosecution witnesses, had made certain very material admissions in their evidence which were fatal to the prosecution case

Trial Court did not consider/appreciate said admissions while delivering the impugned judgment

Acquittal of co-accused on the basis of same set of evidence had not been challenged by the prosecution

Conviction of the accused on same set of evidence, where other accused charged similarly was acquitted, was altogether unjustified under the law

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2022 MLD 1298 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.23(1)APossession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubt

Prosecution case was that 30-bore pistols were recovered from the possession of accused and they failed to produce licence of recovered weapons

Record showed that recovery was effected in presence of Rangers Officials at thickly populated area, however, none from the Ranger personnel was associated as witness or attesting witness of the recovery proceedings

In other words, witnesses in whose presence alleged recovery was effected, were not produced during trial

Evidence of witnesses who had been examined before the Trial Court against accused was of no consequence, more particularly when their evidence had not been believed by the other trial Court against co-accused

Recovery of pistol appeared to be managed as no script/words of such pistol had been furnished by the prosecution in the memo. of recovery

Recovery of pistol from the present accused became doubtful as the pistol was alleged to have been recovered from the accused and such joint memo of recovery was made against accused

Joint memo of recovery had always been considered to be fatal to the prosecution case which fact had eclipsed evidentiary worth of the recoveries

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2022 MLD 1298 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.23(1)APossession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtRule of consistencyScope

Prosecution case was that 30-bore pistols were recovered from the possession of accused and they failed to produce licence of the same

Cases of the accused persons were entrusted to two different courts

Record showed that memo of recovery and arrest in respect of present accused as well as co-accused was handed down by same set of witnesses, who had deposed in the same line and manner before two courts

Trial Court, who tried the case of co-accused, disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses against co-accused (since acquitted) on the basis of same set of evidence while the court trying the case against present accused had convicted the accused on the basis of same set of evidence furnished by the same witnesses, which was in clear violation of rule of consistency

Rule of consistency demanded that if the evidence had been disbelieved in respect of co-accused, the same could not be relied upon for convicting other accused

Present accused in circumstances should a have also been extended same benefit as given to the acquitted accused, which was not done by the Trial Court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2013 YLR 1256 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13(d)Possession of illegal weaponBail, grant ofFurther inquiryBail already granted in connected F.I.R.Report of ballistic expert not obtainedEnmity with police allegedChallan already submitted in courtEffectAccused allegedly fired at a police party with the intention to killAccused was subsequently arrested and found in possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov

Two separate F.I.Rs. were registered against accused, one under Ss.324 and 353, P.P.C. and the other one (present F.I.R.) under S. 13(d) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965

Accused was already granted bail for the F.I.R. under Ss. 324 and 353, P.P.C.

All prosecution witnesses were police officials

Kalashnikov allegedly recovered from accused was not sent to ballistic expert for report

Challan had already been submitted and there was no question of tampering with prosecution evidence

Accused had also alleged enmity with the police

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

2013 YLR 30 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.13(d)Possession of illegal weaponAppreciation of evidenceWeapon not sealed on the spotReport of Ballistic Expert not obtainedIndependent witnesses not engagedEnmity with police allegedEffect

Accused and co-accused persons were challenged by police at a checkpoint because of which they allegedly fired at the police with the intention to kill

Two F.I.Rs. were registered for the case, one under Ss. 324, 354, 148 & 149, P.P.C and the other under S. 13(d) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965

Joint mashirnama was prepared for both F.I.Rs.

Trial Court convicted the accused under S. 13(d) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965

Validity

Joint mashirnama was prepared for both the F.I.Rs. and both cases were tried and decided by the same court

Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence in one case and more or less on the same evidence convicted accused without assigning any sound reasons

Weapon recovered from accused had neither been sealed at the spot nor was it sent to ballistic expert along with empties for examination and report

Tampering of evidence in such circumstances could not be ruled out

Plea of accused that he was in police custody prior to registration of F.I.R. in question had been disbelieved by the Trial Court without assigning any cogent reason

Police had prior spy information therefore it had sufficient time to call independent and respectable persons of locality to make them mashirs but same had not been done

Testimony of police officials appeared to be unnatural and untrustworthy, particularly in the background of enmity alleged with police officials

Prosecution had not produced arrival and departure entries for the satisfaction of the Trial Court

Prosecution case was full of doubts, benefit of which had to be extended to the accused

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was set-aside and accused was acquitted of the charge.