IQBAL QASIM vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 13 of Ordinance XX of 1965 and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the weapon (chhuri) from the possession of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of the independent public witness, corroborated by the investigating officer, sufficiently established the prosecution's case regarding the recovery of the weapon while the appellant was in police custody. The court dismissed the appeal on merits regarding the conviction but modified the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant while maintaining the fine and default sentence. The key principle laid down is that an unblemished recovery supported by an independent witness and a police official is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the relevant penal provisions of the arms ordinance.
- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an investigating officer regarding the recovery of a weapon is sufficient for conviction under Ordinance XX of 1965?
- Can the appellate court reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction?
- Does the recovery of a weapon from a room not in the exclusive physical possession of the accused vitiate the trial?
- Section 13, Ordinance XX of 1965
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.376-J of 2002 directed against the judgment, dated 29-6-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 13 of Ordinance XX of 1965 and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' R.I. With fine of. Rs. 5,000 or in default six months' S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to him.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 27-4-2000 at about 8 a.m. In the area of Chak No.66/JB during the investigation of a case F.I.R. No.176, dated 20-4-2000 under section 302/34, P.P.C. The appellant disclosed and got recovered chhuri for which he has no permit or licence, hence the instant case was registered against him.
3. After due investigation the appellant was challaned and was sent to Jail to face the trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced two witnesses in all. Learned S.P.P. After giving up Abdul Shakoor and Muhammad Sabir being unnecessary, closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he pleaded his innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence and other documents and hearing the arguments advance by both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that there is contradiction between the evidence of both the P.Ws., that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and in order to strengthen the murder case recovery has been planted on him, that the said room from where the said chhuri was recovered that was not in actual physical possession of the appellant..
He submits that the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
6. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that Abdul Sattar P.W.1 is from the public while Allah Ditta P.W.2 S.-I. Is the witness who got recovered the chhuri on the pointation of the appellant, that statements of both the witnesses corroborated with each other. He supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record available on the file. In the instant case the appellant was in police custody in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. When he disclosed that he could get recover a chhuri P.1 and he got recovered the same from box which was lying in the residential room vide recovery memo. Exh.P.A. Abdul Sattar P.W.1 is an independent witness as he has no relationship with the complainant and even he has no enmity whatsoever with the appellant. His statement is corroborated by P.W.2 Allah Ditta. There is nothing on the record that Chhuri has been planted on the appellant. After going through the statements of both the P.Ws., I am satisfied with the prosecution version so in my view prosecution has proved its case against the appellant. This appeal is dismissed but with the modification that the sentence which the appellant has already undergone is treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. As far as sentence of fine is concerned, that is maintained or in default thereof three month's S.I.