MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court, Mianwali, convicting the appellant under Section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance and Sections 4 and 5-A of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, for possessing an unlicensed .12 bore gun and a live hand-grenade. The core legal questions involved the reliability of uncorroborated police official witnesses in the absence of public witnesses, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that police officials are as competent and credible as public witnesses, particularly in cases involving tribal enmities where public witnesses are reluctant to come forward, and that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the appellant's guilt. The key principle laid down is that the quality of evidence matters over quantity, and police testimony is fully admissible and reliable in the absence of mala fides.
- Are police officials considered competent and reliable witnesses in criminal trials when no public witnesses are joined?
- Does the absence of public witnesses at the time of the recovery of illicit arms and explosives vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction under the Explosive Substances Act 1908 and the Arms Ordinance be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials?
- Section 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance
- Section 4, Explosive Substances Act 1908
- Section 5-A, Explosive Substances Act 1908
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1194 of 2001 directed against the judgment dated 18-7-2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court, Mianwali, whereby he convicted the appellant as under:- ' Under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance the appellant was sentenced to undergo three years'
R.I. With fine of Rs,5,000 or in default six months' R.I.
' Under section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 he was sentenced 7 years, and ' Under section 5-A of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 his property was forfeited with the Government.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Exh.P.D. By the police are that on getting information about the presence of appellant, a raid was conducted at about 3 p.m. In the house of Habib Ullah where Muhammad Pervaiz appellant was found in possession of .12 bore gun with five live cartridges and a hand-grenade with match box having fuse of the grenade. The accused- appellant was apprehended and the fire-arms recovered from him was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.A. Ultimately, with permission of the Government the challan against the appellant was submitted under the above charge.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as three P.Ws. While one P.W. Fateh Khan, A.S.-I. Was given up by the S.P.P. Thereafter statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, that no person from the public was joined at the time of recovery of hand-grenade and .12 bore gun, that the statement of all the witnesses are discrepant, that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution are police officials, that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity with the police. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown me today a case F.I.R. No,3 of 1998 registered at Police Station A.C.E., Mianwali, dated 26-5-1998.
Learned counsel submits that no case is made out against the appellant and moreover, his mother has also appeared as D.W.1 before the learned trial Court and she has demolished the prosecution version. He has relied upon 1991 PCr.LJ 2274:
5. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that the appellant was named in the F.I.R., that a .12 bore gun and a hand grenade was recovered from him. He supports the judgment of, the learned trial Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record. In the instant case Azmat Ullah Khan, A.S.-I. Has appeared as P.W.1, while Muhammad Rafique, S.-I.
Appeared as P.W.2 and Mehr Khan, Constable has appeared as P.W.3. The complainant of this case is Muhammad Rafique, S.-I./S.H.O., who according to his statement, on receiving the information arrested the appellant and from his possession a .12 bore gun and a hand-grenade was recovered.
Hand-grenade was also examined and according to the report, which is on the record at page 61 of the judicial file. It was found by the Bomb Disposal Commander and his two companions that it was live hand grenade and could cause damage to lives of people and property of persons.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also raised an objection that Fateh Khan, A.S.-I. Was not produced before the learned trial Court who was a recovery witness. The Court has to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence. There is no enmity on the part of the P.Ws.
Who were produced by the prosecution against the appellant According to the judgment of this Cotirt and also of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan police witnesses are as good witnesses as public witnesses, even otherwise it is a case from District Mianwali where old enmities exist between different tribes. Case F.I.R. No,3 of 1998 which has been shown me today in Court and the same was not produced before the trial Court reveals that a case under section 302, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,32 of 1997 was registered against the father of the present appellant and others. No person from the public in such-like cases dares to appear as a witness. Statement of Azmat Ullah Khan, A.S.-I. Is corroborated with the statement of Muhammad Rafique, S.-I./S.H.O. As far as D.W.1 is concerned, she is mother of the appellant. The natural D conduct was that she should have supported her son. No person from the public was produced in this regard. I see no mala fide whatsoever on the part of the P.Ws. Produced by the prosecution. The judgment cited by the defence counsel is not applicable in this case.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence and the impugned judgment, I am of the view that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.