Possession of unlicensed arms

Prosecution case was that one 30-bore unlicensed pistol along with four cartridges loaded in a magazine and six cartridges of the same bore were recovered from the possession of the accused

Although both the marginal witnesses to the recovery memo vide which the weapon of offence was taken into possession by the complainant, were Police Officials, however, the testimonies of Police Officials were as good as any other private witness unless it was proved that they had any animosity against the accused

Further, that reluctance of general public to become witness in such like cases had become judicially recognized fact and there was no way out to consider statement of official witnesses, as no legal embargo was imposed in that respect

Police Officials were as good witnesses and could be relied upon, if their testimony remained unshattered during cross-examination

In the present case, defence had failed to substantiate that the prosecution witnesses had any ill-will or animosity towards the accused to falsely implicate him

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

Prosecution case was that one 30-bore unlicensed pistol along with four cartridges loaded in a magazine and six cartridges of the same bore were recovered from the possession of the accused

Scrutiny of record depicted that the pistol was recovered from personal possession of the accused for which he could not produce any valid license or permit for its lawful retention coupled with the fact the same was used by the accused in a murder case

Furthermore, the weapon of offence was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical analysis, report of which was found positive which further supported prosecution case

Prosecution produced five witnesses to prove its case against the accused and all of them were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be extracted from their mouth to favour the accused or to create any doubt in their credibility in respect of recovery of weapon of offence rather all the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and coherent on material aspects of the case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

One of the private persons had deposed that the police officials approached him, asked for his identity card and obtained his thumb impressions on blank papers and that he did not know what the police did with the papers

Police officials were as much good witnesses as any other but in this case, this view could not be subscribed to

Other private witness was not produced before the Trial Court

Case property was not produced in evidence before the Trial Court

Daily diaries in respect of departure from and arrival back into the police station were not produced

So far as confessional statement of accused was concerned, sufficient time was not given to the accused to think over his willingness to confess his guilt and the Judicial Magistrate had not recorded as to whether both the accused and co-accused were made to sit at one and the same place in the courtroom or not

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Non-production of case property is considered a material dent in the prosecution case.

Accused was convicted for having been found in possession of an unlicensed pistol along with 5 live bullets lying in its magazine

Complainant did not associate any private person of the locality to act as mashir of arrest and recovery

Complainant was not supposed to fulfil a formality by merely asking private persons present at the spot to act as mashir but he should have utilized his powers by issuing notice under S. 160, Cr.P.C. to such person, which was not done

Complainant did not take any action under S. 187, P.P.C. against such person for not providing him assistance

Weapon was sent to the Forensic Laboratory after a delay of 10 days for which no explanation was given

Complainant had not even claimed that he had deposited the weapon in the malkhana during the intervening period

Complainant himself had acted as investigating officer, which conduct was depreciated by the High Court

Prosecution had not succeeded in discharging its obligation to prove the case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that one TT Pistol of 30-bore containing 04 live bullets was recovered from accused, while co-accused was also found in possession of one 30-bore pistol and they had no licenses for the weapons carried by them, which were used in the commission of the murder in another case

Record showed that present case was a case of spy information, however, Investigating Officer failed to associate private persons as mashirs

Investigating Officer had admitted in the cross-examination that private persons crossed the road at the relevant time on motorcycles

Investigating Officer had failed to explain as to why he did not associate private persons as mashirs of recoveries in those cases

Evidence of the Police Officials in circumstances, required independent corroboration, which was lacking

Trial Court in the murder case had already disbelieved the testimony of same Police Officials with regard to recovery of weapons

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that one TT Pistol of 30-bore containing 04 live bullets was recovered from accused, while co-accused was also found in possession of one 30-bore pistol and they had no licenses for the weapons carried by them, which were used in the commission of the murder in another case

Record showed that material contradictions regarding arrest of the accused persons had been highlighted by the defence

Recovery witness in the cross-examination had replied that Investigating Officer first caught hold of the accused persons

Said witness had also admitted that Investigating Officer had a handicapped leg

Investigation Officer in that case in the cross-examination had replied that he did not catch hold any of the accused

Admittedly, description of the pistols was not mentioned in the mashirnama of recovery

Mere mentioning that pistols were without numbers was not sufficient

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that one TT Pistol of 30-bore containing 04 live bullets was recovered from accused, while co-accused was also found in possession of one 30-bore pistol and they had no licenses for the weapons carried by them, which were used in the commission of the murder in another case

Record showed that pistols recovered from the possession of the accused were allegedly used in the murder case

Prosecution was duty bound to prove the safe custody of the weapons at the "Malkhana" of the police station and safe transmission to the Ballistic Expert, but prosecution had failed to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the pistols to the Ballistic Expert

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant had stated that the police, after going to various places, had reached at the place of incident within one hour of leaving the police station and the distance between the places was 8/9 kilometers

Police party could not have reached at the place of incident within one hour

Requirements of S. 103, Cr.P.C. were not fulfilled in letter and spirit

Complainant and mashir although tried to justify non-association of independent witnesses by stating that no one was available at the place of incident but such assertion was belied by mashirnama wherein it was specifically stated that place of incident was a frequent passage of public

Delay of two days in sending the pistol to the Forensic Laboratory was fatal especially when the Investigating Officer had not claimed that he had deposited the same in the malkhana

Report of Forensic Laboratory revealed that number of the pistol was rubbed but the prosecution had not alleged that the number was rubbed rather it had stated that "Pak-made-Cal 7.6.3 MM .30 Bore" was written on the pistol which fact was not mentioned in the report of Forensic Laboratory

Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed.

Accused was arrested by police after exchange of firing for about half an hour but it did not appeal to reason as to how did the other accused, for whose arrest the raid was conducted, managed to escape

Statement of complainant was contradicted by eye-witnesses

Prosecution had failed to dispatch the weapon with rounds in order to ascertain whether the recovered weapon was in working condition or not

Mere recovery without the report of Forensic Laboratory did not advance the case of prosecution

Appeal was accepted and the accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Accused along with others, in an unwitnessed occurrence, was alleged to have caused murder on account of deceased's association with accused persons' adversary

Complainant was not eye-witness of the occurrence

None from the public had come forward to furnish ocular account of the occurrence

Complainant, though, had directly charged the accused persons after two months of the occurrence but he had not disclosed his source of information

Motive advanced by the complainant had to be proved during the trial

Co-accused having similar role were bailed out by the Trial Court

Accused was refused bail by the Trial Court only on ground that crime weapon was shown to have been recovered on his pointation from his residential room

No evidence was available on record to show that the house from which weapon was recovered, was in the sole ownership of the accused

Search of the said house conducted by the Investigating Officer, four days prior to the recovery had gone futile

Weapon was recovered on the joint pointation of two accused persons

Question whether the incident was a job of single person or otherwise was a debatable question which had to be answered by the Trial Court

Participation of accused in the commission of offence required further probe

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that one unlicensed single barrel gun was recovered on the pointation of accused during the investigation of a murder case

Record showed that the present case was offshoot of main case registered under Ss.302, 114, 504 & 34, P.P.C., against present accused and others, in which present accused and co-accused had already been acquitted of the charge

Admittedly, when an accused had been acquitted in the main case, he would be entitled to be acquitted in a case which was offshoot of the main case

Present case being offshoot of the main case, accused deserved to be acquitted in that case also

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that one .30-bore pistol loaded with three live bullets were recovered from the possession of accused, while he was in a car

Accused failed to produce the license for the recovered pistol and documents of the car

Said car was found to be the stolen property of a case registered under S. 381-A, P.P.C.

In the present case, the evidence of official witness showed that for proceeding towards police station, he took lift of a motorcyclist which clearly showed that traffic was plying on the road and that on the signal of the police the persons driving the vehicles would have certainly stopped their respective vehicles

Nothing was available on the record that the police tried to stop any vehicle in order to make the persons sitting therein as mashir of arrest and recovery and issued any notice under S. 160, Cr.P.C. to any such person

If any such person refused to become mashir, whether any action under S. 187, P.P.C. was taken against such person or not

Accused/appellant had been acquitted in the main case registered under Ss. 381-A & 411, P.P.C., therefore, he was also entitled to be acquitted in the other case which was offshot of the main case, in which he had already been acquitted

Although FIR was lodged at police station, but not a single person from the said police station had been cited as witness in the case and even the author of the FIR had not been examined by the prosecution

Admittedly, on the sealing cloth crime number was mentioned, although, admittedly, the FIR was registered at police station subsequent to sealing process

Contradiction in the two statements of the complainant was found i.e. one made during his evidence before the Trial Court and the other made under S. 161, Cr.P.C. regarding pointing out the place of incident to the Investigating Officer by the complainant

Although complainant deposed that the case property was sealed at the spot, however, witness, who was accompanying the complainant at the time of arrest of accused and recovery of case property, stated that it was not in his knowledge if the case property was sealed at the spot

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution witness had stated that he had prepared the memo. of arrest and recovery on the bonnet of the vehicle in torch light but the torch was not produced in evidence

Prosecution witnesses had failed to provide an accurate description of the weapon and the time of their leaving the police station for patrolling

Weapon was sent to the Forensic Laboratory with a delay of two days and no evidence was produced to prove safe custody

Trial Court had already disbelieved the prosecution version in main case

Benefit of the slightest doubt regarding the guilt of accused went in his favour

Prosecution was duty bound to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, however, it had failed to do so

Accused was acquitted of the charge.

Accused was alleged to have got recovered an unlicensed gun from his house while he was being interrogated on the charge of murder

Investigating officer had stated that the accused, while being interrogated, had confessed his guilt and showed his willingness to produce the crime weapon

Said stance of the prosecution was belied by the fact that the accused had not confessed his guilt but on the contrary had denied his involvement in the said case and had alleged false implication on account of enmity with the complainant party

Medical evidence did not prove that the weapon allegedly produced by the accused was used in the crime

Only one empty cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence while the allegation against the accused was that he had fired many shots at the house of the complainant

Recovery of only one cartridge from the place of occurrence created doubt in the prosecution case as there was no explanation as to what happened to the other cartridges

Alleged recovered weapon was not produced before the court on the ground of being stolen or burnt in riots/mob attacks

Non-production of alleged unlicensed weapon had caused a dent in the prosecution case

Prosecution had to connect the accused with the crime weapon, allgedly recovered from his house and then connect the crime weapon with the crime itself; for that purpose a trustworthy report from the Ballistic Expert, connecting the recovered weapon with alleged crime, was necessary

Allegedly recovered weapon was sent to Ballistic Expert after a delay of about four months

No trustworthy report of Ballistic Expert was available to connect the allegedly recovered weapon with the crime therefore, it could not be said that the same weapon was used for commission of the crime

Once the accused was acquitted of the charge of murder in which he was alleged to have used the weapon, the offshoot case of recovery of the weapon also became doubtful

Judgments passed by the courts below were set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Roznamcha entry through which police party had left the police station for patrolling was not produced in evidence nor was the same referred to in the memo of arrest/ recovery and the statement of complainant

Arrival entry through which, the police party came back at police station from the place of recovery was not produced in evidence

Police party, despite advance information, did not associate private witnesses

Mere fact that the witness of recovery had no apparent reason to depose against the accused, was not sufficient to hold him trustworthy and/or he had no enmity with the accused to implicate him falsely

Trial Court had not invited the attention of accused towards the report of Ballistic Expert while recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., which was fatal to the prosecution case

Rifle recovered from the possession of accused was sent to the Ballistic Expert with inordinate delay of six days

Positive report of Expert, in circumstances, did not improve the prosecution case

High Court acquitted the accused from the charge and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court.

Prosecution case was that 9-MM pistol with loaded magazine (without bullets) was recovered from the possession of accused

Accused at the time of arrest was also booked in a murder case registered under Ss. 302, 397 & 34, Penal Code, 1860

Accused during the trial, moved application under S.249-A, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court accepted the said application and acquitted the accused

Validity

Record showed that accused was acquitted on the sole ground that period of one year had lapsed after framing of charge but, none of the prosecution witnesses turned up to record evidence inspite of coercive method adopted by the Trial Court

Accused was languishing in jail without any progress in the trial

Case diaries of the case showed that on several date of hearings of the trial, jail authority did not produce accused for evidence

On almost five dates, the Presiding Officer was on leave, the case could not proceed

Accused facing trial without any progress was hardly a ground for acquittal without recording evidence

Prima-facie, the charge against accused was not groundless as he was caught red-handed with crime weapon

Trial Court had wrongly applied S.249-A, Cr.P.C., therefore, no sanctity could be attached to the impugned order

Trial Court had ignored the fact that accused was facing murder charge under S.302, Penal Code, 1860 in another case

Circumstances established that impugned order was perverse, arbitrary, which was not sustainable and suffered from factual and legal infirmity

Appeal against acquittal was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court and case was remanded to Trial Court with the direction to conclude the case after recording evidence of the parties.

Record showed that pistol had not been recovered on the pointation of accused during investigation of the case as a weapon of offence

FIR under S.13, Arms Ordinance, 1965 and not under any provision of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had been registered against the accused

Petition had been filed after two and half years, which was time barred

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused during investigation of said case, made disclosure and in consequence of said disclosure, on his pointation, unlicensed Kalashnikov along with empty magazine was recovered from the room of residential house

Separate FIR for possessing unlicensed arms was registered against the accused

Accused objected that place of recovery was situated in a populated area but no member of public was associated to witness the recovery

Validity

Admittedly, no member of public was associated to join the said recovery in the present case, which was violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C.

Statement of the Investigating Officer showed that no efforts were made to join any member of the public to witness the recovery

Recovery of Kalashnikov, which was not effected from the actual possession of accused without joining disinterested persons in spite of availability, was highly doubtful and no reliance could be placed thereon

Circumstances established that prosecution failed to prove the case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Accused was arrested in the case registered under Ss.302, 324, 109 & 34, P.P.C. and under Ss.6/7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Accused during investigation, led to recovery of .30 bore pistol

Separate FIR for possessing unlicensed arms was registered against the accused

Trial Court dealing with the main case sent the case registered under S. 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965 to the court of Judicial Magistrate under the assumption that case was exclusively triable by the Judicial Magistrate

Trial Court acquitted the accused due to non-availability of evidence

Validity

Record of main case showed that crime empties of .30 bore pistol were recovered from the place of occurrence

Said crime empties were found wedded with the .30 bore pistol recovered on the pointation of accused

Accused having been acquitted on flimsy grounds could not be accorded judicial blessing as the Trial Court had not followed the procedure provided in Chap. VI (Ss. 68 to 93-C), Cr.P.C. for procuring attendance of the witnesses

Transfer of the case by the Anti-Terrorism Court was not only illegal but also unwarranted

Recovered pistol was corroborative piece of evidence in the main case

Witnesses of recovery were cited as prosecution witnesses in the calendar of witnesses of main case

Circumstances suggested that acquittal order was passed without legal justification

Appeal against acquittal was allowed accordingly and case was remanded to the Anti-Terrorism Court for its disposal with the main case.

High Court observed that grant of bail in cases not falling within domain of prohibition clause of proviso to S. 497, Cr.P.C. was not a rule of universal application and each case had to be seen through its own facts and circumstances

Accused could not offer any proper explanation, nor produced valid permit for carrying huge quantity of arms of various bores along with thousands of cartridges recovered from him

Accused was prima facie linked with commission of alleged offence

Bail petition was dismissed accordingly.

Prior information qua the smuggling of arms and ammunition through vehicle was available and accused were arrested during nakabandi

One of the accused was driver while the other was cleaner and third was their companion

Accused persons could not be absolved from the responsibility of the arms and ammunition and same could neither be concealed without their consent/knowledge nor recovery could be planted

Accused could not bring on record anything to establish that said arms and ammunition were planted against them

Prosecution witnesses had given vivid account of the occurrence and no discrepancy in their statements could create doubt in the prosecution version

Nothing was on record to suggest that the incriminating articles were either planted or the accused were falsely charged

Accused had failed to bring on record any mala-fide or ulterior motive

Police official were as good witnesses as the private witnesses were and their statements could not be brushed aside

Amourer had given his specific opinion with regard to arms being serviceable which remained un-rebuttal

Number of each weapon was given in the initial report and nothing was in rebuttal

Trial Court had taken a lenient view while awarding sentence of three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 to the accused persons

Appeals were dismissed.