MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State
This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Gujranwala, which convicted the appellant, Muhammad Saleem, for offences under sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended following a police encounter involving an exchange of fire, during which the appellant was found in possession of a .30 bore pistol and ammunition. The appellant contended that the case was fabricated by the police to conceal their own actions, noting that no police personnel were injured despite the alleged hour-long shootout. The Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the prosecution witnesses consistently corroborated the appellant's presence and apprehension at the scene with the recovered weapon. While the Court maintained the convictions, it exercised its discretion to modify the sentence. The holding affirmed the guilt of the appellant but reduced the sentence under section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, from five years to four years of rigorous imprisonment, with all sentences ordered to run concurrently, granting the benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Can a court reduce a sentence while maintaining the conviction in a criminal appeal?
- Does the recovery of a weapon at the spot of a police encounter constitute sufficient evidence for conviction under the Arms Ordinance 1965?
- Is the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences running concurrently?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J .---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.335-J of 2002 directed ,against the judgment, dated 24-4-2002 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Gujranwala, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 5 years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5000 or in default thereof 3 months S.I. He was also convicted under section 353, P.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo 2 years' R.I. under section 13 of Arms Ordinance of 1965. He was also sentenced to undergo 3 years' R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. are that S.-I. of CIA Staff Hafizabad along with police officials was present at Qatal Gharah Chowk when he received a spy information about the presence of appellant and his companions at graveyard of Qila Sahib Singh. They were further informed that the accused were selling the narcotics. They were raided but they instead of surrendering themselves started firing at the police party. The police from the other police stations also came there and then firing was exchanged between the accused and the police party for one hour. When the firing was stopped the accused were encircled. Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Saleem appellants were apprehended while the other managed their escape .30 bore pistols with 5 bullets each were recovered from them. Muhammad Saleem accused/appellant was also found injured in this occurrence.
3. After thorough investigation the accused were challaned under sections 324/353/34, P.P.C. and also under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance of 1965.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 9 witnesses including Doctor, I.O., eye-witnesses and other formal and relevant witnesses. After giving up some P.Ws. learned PP closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution and hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused. Hence this appeal filed by Muhammad Saleem appellant from jail.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that case against the appellant is falsified, that in fact no body was injured from the side of the police although it was stated that firing took place for about one hour, that in fact appellant was injured in this case by the police and to cover their evil designs the police had manoeuvered this case.
6. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that appellant is named in the F.I.R. He was apprehended at the spot along with pistol .30 bore P.1 and bullets five in number P.2/1-5, that learned trial Court after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that case has been proved against the appellant and then the learned trial Court convicted the appellant. He supports the prosecution case.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is a case of police encounter. Though, the appellant was injured at the spot but he was arrested at the spot. Pistol P.1 and bullets P.2/1-5 have been recovered from him. All the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution have stated against the appellant. They have corroborated the statements of each other, that guilt of the appellant is fully proved, that case has been proved against the appellant. The conviction in all the offences is however, maintained but sentence under section 324, P.P.C. is reduced from 5 years to 4 years' R.I.. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Sentence of fine is maintained.
N.H.Q./M-667/L Sentence reduced.