AZIZ ULLAH KHAN Versus THE STATE
The appellant, Aziz Ullah Khan, challenged his conviction and seven-year sentence for an offence under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, following the recovery of a pistol and live bullets from his residence during a murder investigation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution witnesses, all public servants, provided consistent testimony with no evidence of bias or ill-will against the appellant. Furthermore, the court noted that the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed the recovered weapon matched the crime-empty found at the scene of the connected murder case. The court held that the prosecution successfully established guilt and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was neither excessive nor oppressive. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were maintained, affirming the reliability of official witnesses and forensic evidence in establishing possession of illicit arms.
- Can the testimony of public servants be relied upon to prove a criminal charge in the absence of evidence of bias?
- Does forensic matching of a recovered weapon to a crime scene empty shell constitute sufficient proof of possession?
- Is a sentence of seven years for an offence under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 considered excessive?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J .‑‑ Aziz Ullah Khan appellant was convicted for In offence under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 vide, judgment dated 6‑5‑1999 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court No. II, Mianwali and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. The benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.
2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that during the investigation of a murder case the appellant had led to the recovery of a pistol 30 bore and seven live bullets on 20‑7‑1996 from the bedding inside the `Baithak' of his own house. Consequently F.I.R. No. 184 was registered at Police Station City, Mianwali on 20‑7‑1996 for an offence under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. After completion of investigation a challan was submitted and the learned trial Court framed a charge under section 13 of the West Pakistan, Arms Ordinance, 1965 against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
3. During the trial the prosecution produced five witnesses in support of its case against the appellant Muhammad Akram, A.S.I. (P.W.1) had recorded the formal F.I. R. and had kept a parcel in his custody. Muhammad Aslam, FC (P.W.2) had witnessed the recovery from the appellant. Rafi Ullah; A. S. I. (P.W.3) had effected the recovery from the appellant and had subsequently investigated this case. Habib Ullah, MHC (P.W.4) had also at one stage kept the parcel of the recovered articles in his custody in Malkham, Bahadar Khan (P. W. S) had taken the recovered articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their comparison. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant had denied and controverted the allegations levelled by the prosecution and had professed his innocence. The appellant had also denied the alleged recovery and his ownership of the recovered weapon. The appellant had, however, opted not to make any statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and he also did not produce any witness in his defence. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court found the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus; the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution has successfully brought the guilt of the appellant home and, therefore, the conviction as well as sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. After hearing the learned course, for the parties and going through the record we have noticed that the witnesses produced by the prosecution were all public servants who had no background of ill‑will or bitterness against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in a case of this nature. The said witnesses had made consistent statements and we have found no reason to disbelieve them as the defence had miserably failed to elicit anything favourable to it from the said witnesses in cross‑examination. The weapon in question was subsequently found to be working order as the Forensic Science Laboratory had found that the crime‑empty recovered from the place of occurrence in the connected murder case had been found to be wedded with the weapon recovered from the appellant in the present case. The sentence passed against the appellant by the learned trial Court has also not been found by us to be excessive or oppressive in the circumstances of this case.
6. For that has been discussed above this appeal is hereby dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and. maintained.
H.B.T./A‑500/L Appeal dismissed.