Samiullah v. the State,
Bench: Syeda Tahira Safdar
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Samiullah who was convicted by a Sessions Court in Quetta for illegal possession of a pistol under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment plus a fine. He appealed to the Balochistan High Court, arguing that the evidence against him was weak, that police procedures were not properly followed, and that contradictions in witness statements were ignored.
During the appeal, his lawyer shifted strategy, asking the court not to decide the case on its merits but instead to simply reduce his sentence to the time already served, since he had completed about a third of his punishment.
The High Court refused to take this lenient approach. It pointed out that this was not simply a case of illegal weapon possession, the accused had actually been caught in the act of snatching a motorcycle along with an accomplice who escaped, meaning the more serious crime of Haraabah (robbery) under the Hudood laws was also involved. The recovered pistol was loaded and in working condition. Because of this larger criminal context, the court held that leniency was not appropriate.
The court also found that the appellant failed to point out any actual contradictions in the evidence or any legal errors in the original judgment. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The case shows that courts are reluctant to reduce sentences merely on grounds of partial completion when the underlying crime is serious.
یہ مقدمہ سمیع اللہ نامی ایک شخص کا ہے جسے کوئٹہ کی سیشن کورٹ نے ویسٹ پاکستان آرمز آرڈیننس کے تحت غیر قانونی طور پر پستول رکھنے کے جرم میں مجرم قرار دیا تھا اور دو سال قید بامشقت کے ساتھ جرمانے کی سزا سنائی تھی۔ اس نے بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ میں اپیل دائر کی اور موقف اختیار کیا کہ اس کے خلاف شواہد کمزور تھے، پولیس نے تفتیش کا طریقہ کار درست طور پر اختیار نہیں کیا، اور گواہوں کے بیانات میں تضادات کو نظرانداز کیا گیا۔
اپیل کی سماعت کے دوران اس کے وکیل نے حکمت عملی بدل دی اور عدالت سے درخواست کی کہ مقدمے کا فیصلہ میرٹ پر کرنے کے بجائے صرف سزا کو اس مدت تک محدود کر دیا جائے جو وہ پہلے ہی کاٹ چکا ہے، کیونکہ وہ اپنی سزا کا تقریباً ایک تہائی حصہ پورا کر چکا تھا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے اس نرمی برتنے سے انکار کر دیا۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ یہ محض غیر قانونی اسلحہ رکھنے کا سادہ معاملہ نہیں تھا، بل
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2010 Y L R 2157(2)
[Quetta]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
SAMIULLAH ---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2009, decided on 12th January, 2010.
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) ---
----S. 13(e) ---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(2) ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.423 ---Possessing arms and Haraabah --- Appreciation of evidence --Counsel for accused had contended that he did not want to press appeal on merits, if the court while exercising powers under S.423, Cr.P.C. forego the remaining period of sentence as accused had alr eady undergone 1/3rd of his sentence ---In the present case though the accused was charged only for keeping in possession arms without any legal or lawful title, permit or licence, and the quantum of sentence was also two years, but record had revealed that accused was apprehended from the spot when he along with his co - accused were snatching motorcycle from a person ---Allegation against accused, in circumstances, was not simply in respect of illegal possession of arms, but major offence was of Haraabah unde r S.17(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 ---Crime weapon was also in working condition as per Examination Report -- -Accused was further involved and booked in commission of major offence ---Lenient view was not required t o be taken in favour of accused, in circumstances --Accused had failed to point out asserted contradictions present in the evidence and any illegality in the judgment of the Trial Court ---No interference, in circumstances was required to be made in the impu gned order.
Muhammad Ibrahim Umar Lehri for the Appellant.
Abdullah Kurd for the State.
ORDER
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J .---Being aggrieved of judgment made on 14 -9-2009 made by Additional Sessions Judge -V, Quetta, whereby he has been convict ed under section 13-E Arms Ordinance, while sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.10,000, has filed instant appeal praying for setting aside of the impugned order and he be acquitted of the charge. It is his contention that the evidence is not considered in its true perspective, while recovery is not proved from his exclusive possession. Requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. is not complied. Despite material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnes ses, which were not considered, while benefit of the same were not extended in his favour.
As per record an F.I.R. No.169 of 2008 Police Station, Saddar, Quetta was lodged against the appellant, wherein it has' been reported that during patrolling when t he police personnel at 10-30 p.m. reached near Arbab Town, two persons were snatching motorcycles, on having glance of police party they tried to escape, while one of them was apprehended, who on interrogation described his name as Samiullah. On his body s earch a Megarove pistol bearing No.17F7185 along with 4 live cartridges was recovered, which were taken into custody, on demand the accused failed to produce any permit or license of the same, therefore, case under section 13 -E Arms Ordinance was registere d. The other person made his escape good. On completion of investigation challan was submitted, after framing of charge statements of witnesses were recorded, while accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him.
During course of arguments it is contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that he does not want to press the appeal on merits, if the court while exercising powers under section 423 Cr.P.C. forego the remaining peri od of sentences he already undergo 1/3rd of his punishment. The learned PG has no objection on the same.
Though this Court has the power to reverse the findings and sentence, acquit or discharge the accused or reduce the sentence. Though in present case the charge is only in respect of keeping in possession arms without any legal or lawful title, permit or license, while the quantum of sentence is also two years. But perusal of the record reveals that the accused was apprehended from the spot when he alon g with co -accused namely Rehmat were snatching motorcycle from one Salman Ahmed. The co -accused succeeded to escape. Recovery of crime weapon was made from possession of the accused. In respect of said crime F.I.R. No.16 of 2008 was registered, thus in vie w of the same the allegation against the accused is not simply in respect of illegal possession of arms, rather in present case the major offence is of Haraabah under section 17(2) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance -VI of 1979, while present case is interrelated with the same and registered under section 13E of Arms Ordinance 1965. In above mentioned circumstances as the appellant/accused was apprehended from the site while recovery of weapon used in commission of offence was eff ected from his possession that too at the spot, further, the crime weapon is also in working condition as per Examination Report present on record as Exh.P/3 -B, he was further involved and booked in commission of a major offence. Thus in the circumstances, lenient view is not required to be taken in favour of the appellant.
On merits the appellant though have asserted that the defence of appellant is not considered, rather prosecution version is given overweight. Despite asserting the same the appellant h as failed to point out the asserted contradictions present in the evidence. He has further failed to point any illegality in the judgment. In the circumstances no interference is required to be made in impugned order.
In view of above discussion instant appeal is hereby dismissed being without merits.
H.B.T./36/Q Appeal dismissed.