MUHAMMAD MURAD vs THE STATE
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, along with a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of an unlicensed rifle from the possession of the petitioner during a police raid. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts were founded on proper and cogent evidence produced by the prosecution. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a new plea regarding alleged discrepancies in recovery evidence, which was neither raised at the trial nor before the High Court, cannot be entertained for the first time before the apex court. Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
- Can a new plea regarding discrepancies in recovery evidence be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the possession of an unlicensed weapon warrant interference when based on proper evidence?
- Section 13-E, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court dismissing an appeal filed by petitioner against the judgment recorded against him by Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta by which he was held guilty under section13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to 3 years' R.I.
2. ' According to prosecution, on the raid organized by police party, petitioner's house was surrounded and when he came out he had an unlicensed rifle which was seized and the police also took into possession two cartridges in its magazine. On further search a sword was recovered which was lying on .a bed in the house.
3. ' Learned trial Judge believed the prosecution witnesses and held the petitioner guilty on the charges levelled against him except for possession of unlicensed sword for which benefit was granted to the petitioner for the reason that since there were other occupants in the house it was not proved that petitioner was in exclusive possession of the sword.
4. ' Learned Judge in the High Court on reappraisal of the evidence recorded in the case upheld the guilt of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by him.
5. We find that the Courts below have founded guilt of the petitioner on proper and cogent evidence produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel however sought to argue that the evidence regarding the recovery of the rifle is discrepant and petitioner is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. This plea was neither taken at the trial nor before the High Court and petitioner is therefore not entitled to raise it for the first time before this Court.
6. ' There is no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- FAISAL PARACHA Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 2026 SCMR 1355