Karachi.' MUHAMMAD AZEEM vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance for the alleged possession of an unlicensed single-barrel shot-gun and cartridges. The core legal question concerns the reliability of police testimony and the necessity of independent corroboration in the absence of public mashirs during recovery. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case was rendered doubtful due to the sole reliance on police witnesses without producing supporting station-diary entries or independent public mashirs, particularly when enmity with a local zamindar was alleged. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, accepted the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that uncorroborated police testimony in the absence of independent witnesses in doubtful circumstances warrants acquittal.
- Whether a conviction for possession of unlicensed arms can be sustained solely on the testimony of police officers without independent public mashirs?
- Does the failure to produce a station-diary entry proving patrol duty create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
- Is the benefit of doubt to be extended when the possibility of false implication due to personal enmity is not excluded?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance
' The appellant has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad for offence under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance, for having been in possession of unlicensed single-barrel shot-gun and cartridges of 12 bore, and he has been sentenced to undergo R. I. For 2 years.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15-9-1973 Mr. Nazeer Hussain S. H.
0., Kashmore Police Station while on patrol duty at 7th mile of protection bund of Gehalpur found the present appellant coming from the western side at about 10-30 p.m. With a gun in his hand. He was challenged and caught and the 12 bore gun with 5 live cartridges was recovered from his possession. A. S. I. Aitabar Khan and Head Constable Abdul Hakim acted as Masbirs. The case was then registered against the appellant who was sent up in Court and convicted as above. He has appealed from Jail.
3. The version of the appellant is that he is innocent and he has been got implicated by his Zamindar who used to visit his hutment. He had objected to the visits of the Zamindar to his house.
Zamindar had therefore got him falsely implicated with the help of the police.
4. Besides the S. H.
0. Who is the complainant in this case, only one witness Aitabar Khan who was an A. S. I. At that time, has been examined as Mashir. The copy of the station-diary entry has not been produced to show that the S. H.
0. Had actually left the police station at that hour on partol duty. Usually during Nakabandi operations Mashirs from the public are also taken but in the present case not a single independent Mashir has been cited. The appellant is a Sheikh by caste and ordinarily Sheikhs do not go about carrying arms. Mr. Habibur Rashid appearing for the State frankly states that there are only two police officers appearing as witnesses in this case and the facts and circumstances go to show that the prosecution story is entirely doubtful. That the possibility of the appellant having been A falsely implicated in a case of this nature cannot be excluded. Benefit of reasonable doubt is accordingly allowed to the appellant and his conviction! And sentence are set aside. The appeal is accepted. The appellant may be released if not required in any other case.
Cited by 12 cases
- State Versus IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN 2016 GBLR 315
- DHOLAN vs THE STATE 2007 PLD Karachi 328
- DHOLAN Versus State 2007 PLD 328
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others vs THE STATE 1996 PLD Lahore 126
- DUR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE 1994 MLD 1419
- ZAHID HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE 1994 PCRLJ 210
- TARIQ vs THE STATE 1991 MLD 2173
- JAN MUHAMMAD Versus STATE 1989 MLD 4138
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus STATE 1984 PCRLJ 2274
- QALANDAR ALI SHAH vs THE STATE 1984 P Cr. L J 2275
- GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE 1980 PLD Karachi 343
- MUHAMMAD MITHAL Versus THE STATE 1996 PCRLJ 927