IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR

Criminal Appeal No.S-90 of 2013

Appellant: Zameer, through

Mr. Shamsuddin N. Kobhar, Advocate

State: Through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar,

Deputy Prosecutor General

Date of hearing: 18.04.2022

Date of decision: 25.04.2022

J U D G M E N T

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J: Through this criminal appeal, appellant has assailed the judgment dated 10.10.2013 (impugned herein) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III Mirpur Mathelo in Sessions Case No.74/2008 re-“The State v. Zameer”, arising out of Crime No.248/2008, registered at Police Station Daharki, under Section 13(d) Arms Ordinance, 1965, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 13(d) Arms Ordinance and sentenced to suffer R.I for seven years, however benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C was extended to him.

2. Concisely the facts of the prosecution case are that on
08.09.2008 complainant ASI Barkat Ali along with his subordinate
staff during patrolling received telephonic information from SHO
Police Station Daharki that accused Zameer required in Crime
No.68/2008 is going with KK at Mangria Pump link road leading
towards Dahar Wah bridge by foot, as such he along with his
subordinate staff proceeded towards pointed place where at about
2045 hours they apprehended the accused and an unlicenced KK
and seven bullets were recovered from his possession. Hence such
FIR was registered against him.

3. After completing investigation challan was submitted
against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction. After
completing all the legal 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 ASI Barkat Ali at Ex.4, who produced mashirnama of arrest
and recovery, FIR and roznamcha entry at Exh.4-A to 4-C, PW-2 HC Muhammad Khalid at Exh.5, PW-3 ASI Allahdino at Exh.6, who
produced certificate of working condition of KK at Ex.6-A. Thereafter
learned prosecutor closed the side of prosecution vide his statement
at Ex.7.

5. Statement of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C was
recorded at Ex.8, in which he has denied the allegations of the
prosecution and claimed his innocence. However, neither he
examined himself on oath nor led any defence evidence. After
recording evidence and hearing the parties, learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above, hence the
instant appeal.

6.  Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that
the Appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the
police in this case; that there are serious and major contradictions in
the evidence of Complainant as well as PWs (mashir); that there is
violation of section 103 Cr.P.C as despite prior information the
complainant did not associate any private witness or mashirs; 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; that the
prosecution evidence is confidence inspiring. Lastly he prayed that by
dismissing instant appeal, conviction and sentence awarded to
appellant 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 eye
witnesses i.e complainant ASI Barkat Ali and PW/ mashir HC Muhammad Khalid who have fully supported the case of prosecution
nat on 08.09.2008 at about 2045 hours accused Zameer was
arrested and one unlicensed Kalashnikov along with a magazine and
seven live bullets of 7.62 bore were recovered from him under
mashirnama. I.0 ASI Allah Dino also corroborated the prosecution
case by producing the certificate regarding working condition of the
recovered KK. They were cross-examined at length but nothing could
be uttered from their mouths to favour the appellant. However, 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.

11. The recovered weapon was found in working condition.
No enmity with police has been established by the appellant nor the appellant proved any malafide on the part of police for his false
implication. The police officials are as good witness as any other
citizen unless any malafide is established against them, their
evidence cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that they
belong to police department.

12. During arguments learned counsel for the appellant
pointed out some minor contradictions and discrepancies in the
evidence of witnesses which in my view are not sufficient to hold that
the case of prosecution is doubtful. It is settled by now that, wherein
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 10.10.2013 being
impugned by the appellant herein, requires no interference by this
Court, hence, its hereby maintained and the present appeal being8
meritless is dismissed.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA