2010 Y L R 2234
[Quetta]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
ABDUL RAZIQ ---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE ---Respon dent
Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2009, decided on 6th January, 2010.
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) ---
----S.13(e) --- Recovery of unlicensed arms ---Appreciation of evidence ---Accused had urged
that Trial Court had misappreciated the evidence adduced from both the sides, but he had
failed to point out as to which piece of evidence was not properly appreciated ---Recovery of
kalashnikov from the spot at the time of incident was not denied by accused and he failed to
prove that said weapon belong ed to the absconding accused ---Accused had further failed to
establish his plea that alleged crime weapon was planted against him ---Accused, during trial
had never raised contention that on account of dispute between him and staff of the check
post at the relevant time while matter was argued and hot words were exchanged, he was
falsely involved in the case due to personal grudge ---Accused had raised said contention at
the stage of appeal, which was an after -thought ---Trial Court had properly assessed the
evidence placed on record and had come to the conclusion, which was based on material
before it ---Accused had failed to point out any occasion of misappreciation of facts and
evidence or any other illegality in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court ---No ground
existed to interfere in the findings of the Trial Court ---Accused having completely failed to
make out any case on merits, conviction order made by the Trial Court, was upheld, in
circumstances.
Ajmal Kasi for the Appellant.
Qazi Abdul Malik for the State.
Date of hearing: 22nd October, 2009.
JUDGMENT
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ---The appellant being aggrieved of conviction order
made by Sessions Judge, Loralai on 19 -6-2009, whereby he was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.5000, in default further
imprisonment for a term of three months under section 13 -E of Arms Ordinance, 1965.
It is his case that on 1 -2-2009, while he was returning from Duki and waiting for bus on road
side, when one Hidayatullah, who was an absconding accused in a murder case, accompanied
by one Muhammad Din boarded in car, stopped their vehicle near him and offered him lift, as
they were going to Killa Saifullah, offered him to drop him at Sanjavi. He (appellant )
accepted the offer and boarded in the vehicle. At F.C. Check Post at Mundaytak, the car was
intercepted by the F.C. personnel and on search a Kalashnikov was recovered from the trunk
of the car concealed therein, he had no knowledge of the same. While al ong with said persons
he was also taken into custody. As he had no connection with the same, therefore, he agitated
his arrest, which resulted in arguments and hard words with F.C. personnel, who due to the
same planted the Kalashnikov against him, whereby F.I.R. was lodged against him, while one
of the absconder Muhammad Din was set free by the F.C. after undue deal. Thereafter, on
completion of investigation Challan was submitted, while after completion of trial, he was
convicted of the charge.
The appe llant preferred present appeal on grounds that he has committed no offence, while
falsely involved in the case due to personal grudge of F.C. personnel. Further, the absconding
accused persons were in possession of Kalashnikov without his knowledge. Furthe rmore, as
the F.C. personnel set free accused Muhammad Din after undue dealing that is why the whole
staff of the check post was transferred soon after the occurrence. The trial court failed to
appreciate the evidence produced from both the sides. He has p rayed for setting aside of the
impugned judgment and thereby his acquittal.
Counsel for the parties are heard and record is perused.
As per record an F.I.R. No.7 of 2009 was registered in Police Station Duki District Loralai on
the report of Naib Subed ar Zafarullah Khan Post Command 77 -Wing Mandaytak Duki. It has
been reported that a car bearing Registration No.JAA -444, which was coming from Duki and
proceeding towards Loralai, was intercepted and checked by F.C. personnel wherein two
persons namely Hid ayatullah, the driver and Abdul Raziq (present appellant) who was sitting
on front seat, were boarded, on search a Kalashnikov along with 28 live cartridges which was
hanging on shoulder of Abdul Raziq, present appellant, was recovered, who failed to produ ce
any licence or permit for the same. The appellant was booked in case for offence under
section 13 -E of Arms Ordinance, 1965. It is further apparent from record that the driver of the
vehicle namely Hidayatullah was absconder of F.I.R. No. 17 of 2005 Pol ice Station Ziarat
under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. On completion of investigation, case was challaned,
which was tried by Sessions Judge, Loralai. Charge was framed on 27 -3-2009 for the offence
under section 13 -E of Arms Ordinance, 1965, to which t he appellant/accused denied and
claimed trial. Three witnesses appeared from side of the prosecution, while in defence the
appellant/accused produced only one witness and also recorded his own statement on oath.
Though the appellant has urged that the tr ial court has misappreciated the evidence adduced
from both the sides, but he had failed to point out which piece of evidence was not properly
appreciated. The recovery of Kalashnikov from the spot at the time of incident is not denied
by the appellant, ra ther he, in rebuttal, raised contention that the weapon belonged to said
Hidayatullah and Din Muhammad, who were absconding accused persons having enmity. But
the appellant during course of trial failed to establish presence of Din Muhammad in the
vehicle in question. He further failed to produce said Abdul Wahid, who was suggested to
inform S.H.O. about presence of Din Muhammad in vehicle, who was allegedly set free by
complainant Zafarullah. Rather he produced one Abdullah Jan claiming to be heir of the
victim, who asserted to inform the police about presence of Din Muhammad with
Kalashnikov, in reply he was informed that accused persons are arrested when he reached the
headquarter of F.C., he came to know that the original culprit Din Muhammad was release d.
Both these statements are contradictory to each other. The appellant has further failed to
establish his plea that the alleged crime weapon is planted against him. Even during course of
trial he never raised contention that due to dispute arose between him and staff of the check
post at that time while matter was argued and hot words were exchanged, he was falsely
involved in the case due to personal grudge. While recording his statement on oath he is
silent to this extent. Now at stage of appeal he rais ed this contention, which seems to be an
afterthought. The learned trial court has properly assessed the evidence placed on record and
had come to the conclusion, which based on material before it. The appellant has failed to
point out any occasion of mis -appreciation of facts and evidence or any other illegality in the
impugned judgment. Thus in view of the above discussion there is no ground to interfere in
the findings of the trial court.
The appellant has completely failed to make out any case on meri ts; as such appeal is hereby
dismissed. The conviction order made by the trial Court is hereby upheld.
H.B.T./44/Q Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.