(a) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)---
----S. 23(1)(a)---Possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Evidence of police officials---Principles---Evidence of Police Officials could not be discarded simply because they belong to the Police force---Court was not to start with any presumption against them---Where the fate of an accused in the case of recovery of unlicensed arms, hinged upon the testimony of Police Officials alone, it was essential to find out if there was any possibility of securing independent person at the time of recovery---Conviction or acquittal of an accused, would depend upon the credibility of the witnesses; as assessed by the court, but where it was possible for the Police Officials to call independent witnesses to act as Mashir, but they deliberately avoided, the court had to be very careful in weighing such evidence---Judicial approach, had to be cautious in dealing such type of evidence.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 103---Search proceedings---Provisions of S.103, Cr.P.C. were not attracted to the case of personal search of a person, but, where alleged recovery was made from accused, place of recovery was situated in a thickly populated area, omission to secure independent mashirs from the locality, was significant; and could not be brushed aside lightly.
(c) Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013)---
----S.23(1)(a)---Possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt for the reasons that despite contention of defence Counsel, arrival and Roznamcha entries, had not been produced in evidence, in order to satisfy the court that Police party had actually left at relevant time for patrolling---Non-production of departure and arrival entries in evidence would cut the roots of prosecution case---No private person of the locality had been examined in the present case---Accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., had raised plea that recovery had been foisted upon him for the political reasons---Such defence plea was rejected by the Trial Court for no obvious reasons; and dealt with by Trial Court in a very casual manner---Proper mode of appraisal of evidence in the case for the Trial Court, was to consider the reliability of each witness separately, then to examine the case as a whole, and also to examine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses in juxtaposition with each other---Mere fact that mashir of recovery, had no apparent reason to depose falsely against accused, was not sufficient to hold him trustworthy---Mere fact that prosecution witnesses, had no enmity with accused to implicate him falsely, would not render their evidence unanswerable---Truth or falsity of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, would largely depend upon the circumstances to accept the prosecution evidence, non-considering the circumstances, would be totally inconsistent with the safe administration of justice---Rubbed number pistol, recovered from the possession of accused, was sent to the Fire Arm Expert after 16 days of its recovery; and said inordinate delay had not been explained by the prosecution---Possibility could not be ruled out that it was foisted upon accused by the Police---Several circumstances existed which created serious doubt in the prosecution case---Conviction and sentence recorded against accused were set aside, extending him benefit of doubt and he was released, in circumstances.
(d) Criminal trial---
----Benefit of doubt---Benefit of all favourable circumstances in the prosecution evidence, must go to accused, regardless of whether he had taken any such plea or not.
Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others PLD 2005 SC 40 rel.
2016 M L D 230 [Sindh]
Before Naimatullah Phulpoto,
SHAHID IQBAL---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Responden
No comments:
Post a Comment