IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR

Criminal Appeal No.S-61 of 2020

Appellant: Zahoor Ahmed, through

Mr. Shamsuddin N. Kobhar, Advocate

State: Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar,

Deputy Prosecutor General

Date of hearing: 28.02.2022

Date of decision: 20.05.2022

J U D G M E N T

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this criminal appeal, appellant Zahoor Ahmed son of Ghulam Sarwar Sethar, has assailed the judgment dated 21.09.2020 (impugned herein) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Ubauro in Sessions Case No.144/2014 re-“The State v. Zahoor Ahmed”, arising out of Crime No.136/2014, registered at Police Station Ubauro, under Section 24 of Sindh Arms Act 2013, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 24 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to suffer R.I for four years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof to suffer S.I for one month, however benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C was extended to him.

2. Succinctly the facts of the prosecution case are that appellant Zahoor Ahmed who was already in custody in main Crime No.123/2014, during investigation volunteered to produce the crime weapon and led the police party headed by complainant SIP Abdul Hameed to his house on 14.06.2014 and produced the crime weapon viz. one 30 bore pistol bearing No.220033 with magazine and three live bullets of 30 bore from an iron box lying in his house, in presence of mashirs Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Jabbar. The accused had no licence of the pistol hence such FIR under arms Act was lodged by the complainant on behalf of the State.

3. After completing the formalities, the trial court framed charge against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW-01 mashir Muhammad Aslam at Ex.4, who produced mashirnama of recovery at Exh.4-A, PW-2 PC Abdul Sattar at Ex.5, who produced memo of inspection of place of vardat at Ex.5-A, PW-3 WHC Nawab Ali who identified the signatures of SIP Abdul Hameed Shaikh was examined at Ex.7. He produced FIR at Ex.7-A. Thereafter prosecution side was closed vide statement at Ex.8.

5. Statement of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C was recorded at Ex.9, in which he has denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed his innocence. However, neither he examined himself on oath nor led evidence in his defence. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, learned trial Court convicted the accused as stated above, hence the instant appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the Appellant is innocent and alleged weapon has been foisted upon him by the police; that there are serious and major contradictions in the evidence of Complainant as well as PWs (mashir); that neither departure entry to the place of recovery nor arrival back entry to Police Station after recovery of crime weapon was produced; that the recovered weapon was not sent to ballistic expert; that evidence of prosecution witnesses is discrepant, therefore, accused may be acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of the doubt.

7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has mainly contended that all the PWs have deposed in the same line; however some minor contradictions has been pointed out in their evidence which are not sufficient to discard the direct evidence furnished by the prosecution and further submitted that the prosecution evidence is reliable and confidence inspiring. Lastly, he prayed that by dismissing instant appeal, conviction awarded by the learned trial Court may be maintained.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have carefully examined the material available on record with their able assistance.

9. On reassessment of the entire evidence produced by the prosecution it is established that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence.

10. The prosecution to prove its case has examined two witness of the recovery of crime weapon i.e Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Sattar who have fully supported the case of prosecution that on 14.06.2014 during interrogation in main crime by SIP Abdul Hameed Shaikh accused voluntarily confessed his guilty and became ready to produce the crime weapon and led the police towards his house and at 1200 hours produced one 30 bore unlicenced pistol. They were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought favourable to accused. On careful scrutiny of the cross-examination of witnesses it transpired that they have given same answers to the questions and suggestions made on behalf of the appellant which established their presence at the time of arrest and recovery. No major contradiction is found in their evidence. SIP Abdul Hameed has expired hence HC Nawab Ali acquainted with his signature was examined who identified signatures of said SIP on FIR, and memos and supported the prosecution case.

11. No enmity with police /witnesses has been established by the appellant nor the appellant proved any malafide on their part for his false implication. The Police officials are as good as private witnesses and their testimony could not be discarded merely for the reason that they were police officials, unless the defence would succeed in giving dent to the statements of prosecution witnesses and prove their mala fide or ill-will against accused. Reliance can be placed in case of Zafar V. The State (2008 SCMR 125). In the case in hand there are also private witnesses which too supported the case of prosecution.

12. During arguments learned counsel for the appellant pointed out some minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which in my view are not sufficient to hold that the case of prosecution is doubtful. It is settled by now that where in the evidence, prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence then if there may some minor contradictions which always are available in each and every case such may be ignored, as has been held by Honourable Supreme Court in case of Zakir Khan V. The State (1995 SCMR 1793).

13. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to observe that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant, therefore the Judgment dated 21.09.2020 being impugned by the appellant herein, requires no interference by this court, hence, its hereby maintained and the present appeal being meritless is dismissed.

JUDGE