Mir Hassan V. The State,
Bench: Shaukat Ali Rakhshani
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Mir Hassan who was convicted under Pakistan's Arms Ordinance of 1965 for possessing a knife that police said was recovered from his home during a murder investigation. The law makes it illegal to possess certain weapons, including knives with blades of four inches or more, but specifically excludes kitchen knives or knives used in good faith for carrying on a profession from this definition.
During the murder investigation, Hassan reportedly led police to a knife hidden beneath blankets in a room of his house. Based on this recovery, a trial court convicted him and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
On appeal, the Balochistan High Court overturned the conviction. The court found that the prosecution never proved the knife was NOT a kitchen knife or was NOT used for legitimate professional purposes, an essential element the law requires prosecutors to establish. Additionally, the trial court had failed to specifically ask Hassan to explain whether the knife was a kitchen knife when questioning him after the prosecution's evidence closed. Because he was never given this chance to respond, that gap in evidence could not be held against him.
The High Court concluded the prosecution failed to prove its case and that the trial court had misread the evidence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and Hassan was acquitted and ordered released. This case highlights that prosecutors must prove every legal element of a crime, including exceptions written into the law, and that defendants must be properly questioned about specific evidence used against them.
یہ مقدمہ میر حسن نامی ایک شخص سے متعلق ہے جسے پاکستان کے آرمز آرڈیننس 1965 کے تحت ایک چھری رکھنے کے جرم میں سزا سنائی گئی تھی۔ پولیس کے مطابق یہ چھری ایک قتل کی تحقیقات کے دوران اس کے گھر سے برآمد کی گئی تھی۔ قانون کے مطابق بعض ہتھیار رکھنا غیر قانونی ہے، جن میں چار انچ یا اس سے زیادہ بلیڈ والی چھریاں بھی شامل ہیں، تاہم اس تعریف سے باورچی خانے کی چھریوں یا ایسی چھریوں کو مستثنیٰ قرار دیا گیا ہے جو نیک نیتی سے کسی پیشے کے سلسلے میں استعمال ہوتی ہوں۔
قتل کی تحقیقات کے دوران بتایا گیا کہ حسن نے پولیس کو اپنے گھر کے ایک کمرے میں کمبلوں کے نیچے چھپائی گئی چھری تک رہنمائی کی۔ اسی برآمدگی کی بنیاد پر ٹرائل کورٹ نے اسے مجرم قرار دیتے ہوئے تین سال قید بامشقت کی سزا سنائی۔
اپیل پر بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے یہ سزا کالعدم قرار دے دی۔ عدالت نے پایا کہ استغاثہ یہ ثابت کرنے میں
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2025 Y L R 838 [Balochistan] Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ MIR HASSAN---Appellant Versus The STATE--- Respondent Criminal Jail Appeal No. 91 of 2023, decided on 25th November, 2024. Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) --- ----S. 13(e) ---Possession of illicit weapon--- Appreciation of evidence ---Nature and purpose of recovered knife not established---Prosecution case was that during interrogation of a murder case, the appellant made disclosure and got recovered the crime weapon i.e. knife from a room of his house ---Record showed that on the pointation of appellant, a knife was recovered from a room of his house hidden beneath a blanket --- Record showed that the prosecution had failed to establish that the knife recovered from the appellant was not a kitchen knife or that it was not used in good faih for carrying on a profession, which was a pre- requisite of the indictment--- Moreso, on closure of the prosecution evidence, the trial Court also failed to put question to the appellant in respect of use of the recovered knife not being a kitchen knife ---Thus in absence of such question in order to seek explanation, such evidence could not be used against the appellant ---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Miss. Naureen Fatima for Appellant. Yahya Baloch Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") for the State. Date of hearing: 14th November, 2024. JUDGMENT SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .--- Appellant has put in the captioned appeal to set at naught the judgment dated 22.06.2023 ("impugned judgment") rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II Lasbella at Hub ("Trial Court") arising out of FIR No.261 of 2020 (Ex.P/3- A) registered with Police Station City, Hub, whereby he was convicted and sentenced under section 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance of 1965 ("Ordinance of 1965") to suffer R.I for three (3) years with the premium of section 382- B of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.").
2. Facts germane for disposal of the case in hand are that complainant Sikandar Shair S.I.P (PW -1) got lodged crime report ibid on the basis of murasila (Ex.P/1- A) with the averments that on 15.08.2022, the appellant during interrogation in a murder case vide FIR bearing No.266 of 2020 for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 34 P.P.C. made disclosure and got recovered the crime weapon i.e., knife, having 6 ½ inches length, width 1 ½ inches and handle having 4 inches length and one broken Oppo mobile phone hid inside the blankets from a room of his house situated at Ameer Abad. The appellant was put on trial, where on commencement of the trial, the appellant entered the plea of denial, thus, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge, produced three (3) witnesses, and after close of the prosecution side, the appellant was examined under section 342 of Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations and professed innocence, whereafter the appellant neither deposed on oath nor produce defence, henceforth on conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the terms mentioned in the para supra.
3. Heard. Record gone through with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties, which reveals that on the pointation of the appellant a knife, having 6 ½ inches length and 1 ½ inches width was recovered from a room of his house hid beneath the blankets.
4. Bare reading of section 3 (1) (b) (iii) of Ordinance of 1965 reads as under; "3. Definitions: (1) In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say -- (a)"ammunition" includes - (i) ………………….. (ii) ………………….. (iii) ………………….. (iv) ………………….. (v) ………………….. (vi) ………………….. (b) "arms" includes - (i) ………………….. (ii) ………………….. (iii) air pistols, bayonets, swords, sword- sticks daggers, knives with blades of four inches or more (but not kitchen knives or knives used in good faith for the carrying on of a profession), and flick- knives irrespective of the blade;] (iv………………….. (c) "cannon" includes - (i) ………………….. (ii) ………………….. (iii) ………………….. (iv) ………………….. (v) ………………….. (vi) ………………….. (vii) ………………….. (viii) ………………….. (ix) ………………….. (d) "Government" means the "Federal Government for the whole of Pakistan and the "Provincial Government" in the case of a Province; (dd) ………………….. (e) ………………….. (f) ………………….. (g) ………………….. [Emphasize added]
5. The prosecution has failed to establish that the knife recovered from the appellant was not a kitchen knife or was not used in good faith for carrying on a profession, which is requisite of the indictment. Moreso, on closure of the prosecution evidence, the Trial Court also failed to put question to the appellant in respect of use of the recovered knife not being a kitchen knife, thus in absence of such question in order to seek explanation, such evidence cannot be used against the appellant.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the prosecution has failed to drive home the charge against the appellant, but the Trial Court, while ignoring such aspect of the matter by misreading the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant contrary to law and facts, henceforth, we are not inclined to maintain the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant.
7. Corollary, the appeal is allowed and consequent thereto, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court dated 22.06.2023 is set -aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge, who be released forthwith, if not incarcerated in any other case. JK/153/Bal. Appeal allowed.