SHABRAT KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty by the Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, for the illegal possession of a Kalashnikov and ammunition. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of illegal weapon possession beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the reliance solely on police witnesses and the alleged non-compliance with statutory recovery procedures. The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the police witnesses were credible and lacked animosity toward the appellant, and that the recovery of an expensive, automatic weapon like a Kalashnikov was unlikely to be a fabrication. While affirming the guilt, the Court exercised leniency regarding the sentence, noting the appellant's lack of prior convictions and the time already served. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of police officials is not inherently unreliable in recovery cases, provided the witnesses are consistent, credible, and lack specific motive for false implication, and that the nature of the recovered weapon can be a factor in assessing the probability of a planted case.
- Can a conviction for illegal arms possession be sustained based solely on the testimony of police officials?
- Does the absence of public witnesses in a recovery case automatically invalidate the prosecution's evidence under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the nature and value of a recovered weapon a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of false implication?
- Section 13-B, Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 100-J of 1998. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by Judge Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities constituted under (Special Courts) Act, 1975, vide his judgment dated 28-8-1998 to undergo 10 years R.I. Under section 13-B of Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 with a fine of Rs.20,000 (twenty thousand), in default one year R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to him.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 14-12-1993 when complainant Tariq Mehmood, Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station Sadar Jhang was present alongwith police party at 12-20 a.m. (midnight) near Bhakkar Road Mauza Wajhlana, they saw 125 CC Honda Motor Cycle standing there. Immediately, a person whose name later on came to know as Shabrat Khan, came there, sat on the Motor Cycle. He was apprehended and Klashnikov P.1 alongwith 30 live bullets was recovered from him which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.B. Motor Cycle Honda 125 CC Bearing No. F.I.R. 3787 was also taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. The appellant was challaned and he was tried by the Special Judge of Special Court.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced in all three witnesses namely, Riaz Hussain H.C. Examined as, P.W. 1, who had recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 on the receipt of complaint Exh. P.A. Which was sent to him by Tariq Mehmod S.H.O./Inspector, Abdul Razzaq, A.S.I., examined as P.W.
2. He was also member of the raiding party. According to his statement on 14-12-1993 he was present at the spot and it was 12-20 a.m. (midnight) when the appellant was arrested and klashnikov alongwith 30 live bullets .Was recovered from him and was also taken into possession.
The third witness is Tariq Mehmood S.H.U./Inspector who Mated that same facts which he had stated in the F.I.R. Exh. P.A./1. Sajjad Hussain, A.S.I. (P.W.) was given up as being unnecessary. Report of Fire Arm Expert was tendered in defence which is Exh. P.E. And according to the said report the klashnikov recovered from the appellant was round to be automatic.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant deputed by us at State expenses, submits that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are police officials, no public witness has been cited or examined and this is clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. That klashnikov alongwith 30 bullets has been planted on the appellant,' that no case is made out against the appellant.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the judgment of the trial Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court. In the instant case the appellant was arrested on 14-12-1993 at 12.20 a.m. (midnight). Klashnikov alongwith 30 bullets was got recovered from his possession. He could no, produce any licence. A case was registered against him, although the witnesses produced by the prosecution were police officials but they have got no animus against the appellant. There was no question of false implication of the appellant. Klashnikov being an expensive weapon cannot be planted easily. No defence evidence was produced by the appellant. All the witnesses produced by the prosecution i.e. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have corroborated their statements. Then there is report of Fire Arm Expert which shows that klashnikov was an automatic weapon.
7. In our considered opinion the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. However, we take a lenient view as there is no evidence on record that the appellant is a previous convict. Appellant is behind the bars since 14-12-1993, according to the interim orders passed by the learned trial Court. The conviction and sentence which the appellant has already undergone is treated to be sufficient, in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine of Rs.20,000 (twenty thousand) is also reduced to Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand), in default six months R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also granted to the appellant.
8. With these observations this appeal stands disposed of.