ABDUL MANAF vs The STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 6-6-2014 passed by the Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50,000, with an in default imprisonment term, following his acquittal on a murder charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around the legality and credibility of a weapons recovery allegedly effected from a premises neither owned nor resided in by the appellant, marred by material contradictions between prosecution witnesses. The court held that the contradictory evidence regarding the recovery from a third party's premises renders the prosecution's case highly doubtful, entitling the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions in witness statements regarding the recovery of incriminating articles from premises not under the control of the accused vitiate the conviction, warranting the extension of the benefit of the doubt and subsequent acquittal.
- Whether a conviction for possessing an unlicensed weapon can be sustained when the recovery is made from a premises neither owned nor resided in by the accused?
- Does a material contradiction between the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of an article entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can a conviction under the Arms Ordinance stand on doubtful recovery evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance
ORDER
1. WAZIR SHAKEEL AHMED, J.---Through this appeal accused/appellant has assailed the order/judgment of Additional District Judge Gilgit dated 6-6-2014 wherein the accused/appellant was found guilty of keeping unlicensed Five Shot Rifle and was sentenced to fine of Rs.50,000 in default of which the appellant shall further undergo for the period of one year simple Imprisonment (S.I.)
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused/appellant was facing trial under section 302, P.P.C. And 13, A.O. Vide F.I.R. No.27/13 of Police Station Pari Banglah and was acquitted from the charge of murder but was convicted under section 13, A.O. Vide order dated 6-6-2014 as mentioned above. It is an admitted state of affair, the alleged recovery of weapon has been effected from a premises which was neither owned or reside by the accused/appellant. Sole witness Muhammad Ayub P.W.1 further clarifies that the recovered article under Exh.P1/A was brought in his presence and handed over to the police by the owner of the house as against the statement of P.W.7 SIP Abdul Qadus who got the above recovery wherein he states that "as I have already stated the recovery effected from the house of Harat Khan who is son-in-law of accused Mir Ahmed since Hazrat Khan was present in house therefore neither he was arrayed an accused nor cited as witness."
3. This material contradiction makes the case of recovery from the co-accused highly doubtful and the benefit should not go anywhere then to accused/appellant. Reliance can be made a case law PLD 1963 SCMR-17 (sic.).
4. In the light of what has been discussed above, I am inclined to accept this appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 6-6-2014 of Additional Sessions Judge Gilgit and acquitted the accused/appellant from charge under section 13, A.O. In 27/13 of Police Station Pari Banglah.