SALMAN S/O ABDUR REHMAN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

tB3

tN THE HoNoRAircnen couRT oF stNDH AT KARAoHI

criminatAppealnr..Q;{ /2024' FRc-:S€NTEO Olt Salman Slo Abdur Rehman, ..?9.:.9.8::?93.k.. TPYn' Mustin, Adutt, R/o l.lorangi, Mehrfn 9- 4k^1'b 42"- furifrl*n, mfr#, 0epu

Central Jait Karachi """"""""' """' Appellant 35lo Versus ResPondent fhe State FIR No'26t1/2023'

u/s.23 (i) A, s'A'A' 2O1 3 . PS. KA, l(anchi'

410 OF Cr'P'C ACT 1'?3

CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION

i

-t OF

2t

ta

I

tBq

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No'459 ot2024 [Salman vs. Tire State]

Appellant : through Mr' Ajab Khan Khattak, advocate

Respondent Syed N{umtaz Ali Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General .

Date of hearing 12-03-2025

Date of Judgment 12-03-2025

IUDGMENT

filed ]an Ali ]unejo, I.- The Present Criminal Appeal has been ) by the eppLtUnt (accused), challenging the ]udgment dated g1..05.2024 (here-in-after referted to as the lmpugned ludytent) passed by the Court of leamed IVtl'r Additional Sessions ]udge, Karachi-East (here-in-after referred to as the learned Tial Cwrt) in Sessions Case No.430 of 2024 (fhe State vs. Salman), whereby the learned trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 23(1)(a), of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/-' In case of default of fine amount, the Appellant shall suJfer S.I. for two months. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the Appellant.

2.According to the prosecutior; on 19-02-2023 at 0850 hours, at a Vacant Plot, near Jalal Chowk, Mehran Town, Sector 6/E, KIA, Karachi, the complainant ASf Mazhar Hayat of P.S. K'I'A' Karachi apprehended the appellant Salman and recovered one unliceased 30-bore pistol along with five live bullets and cash amount of Rs.1,00,000 /- from his possession. FIR No. 264/2023 was registered against him under Section 23(il(A) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. After completion of the investigatiory the chalge

tBt

t2I

sheet was submitted, and the trial commenced. During the h'iaI, the prosecution examined the following witoresses and produced documentary evidence: I

Pl r-1 ASI Mazhar Hayat (complainant[ who produced:

. Exh4: Roznamcha (dai1y police cliary) entry' . Extr-S: Memo of arrest and recovery (allegedly prepared at the sPot). I

. Exh6: FIR (No. 264/2023). :

. Exh-7: Roznamcha entry (post-recoveryz documentation).

. Exh-8: Memo of Place of incident. J

II/'I-ZPCHanza I(han (mashir of mem;s)

c His testimony was recorded as Exh-9.

i PW-3 SIP Muhammad Nloosa Kl,,o (lnvestigating Officer), who produced:

.J 'r . Exh-104 Roznamcha eqtrY No' l.

. Exh-10/B: Roznamcha entrY No. 14.

('r * . Exh-L0/C: Police letter (for FSL dispatch). . Exh-10/D: FSL report (con{irnring the weapon's . Exh-10/E: Photograph (snap) of *ie recovered pistol' Followin$ the conclusion of the prosecution's case' the Appellant's statement was recorded undel Section 342 of the Giminal Procedure Code (CI.P.C.), during which he refuted ali allegations leveled agalnst him and sought a fair resolution' The Appellant chose not to exercise his right to testiJy under oath pursuant to Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., and declined to present any evidence in his defense. Subsequently, the trial Court, based solely on the prosecution's evidentiaiy subhrissions, found the Appeliant guilty and issued a conviction thlough the impugned Judgment dated May 31',2024 followed by sentence'

3.The learned courisel for the Appellant contends that the leamed trial Court has erred both on facts and 'law while

(gL

t l

legally fiawed' He fur' ftl$ recording the judgment, rendering it argues that the alleged recovery from i the appellant ] tp doubt on the plosecutiolitF contradictory, thereby casting grave failed to appreciate:ttre case. He asserts that the trial Judge 1O3 CI'P'C'' which mand:ates rr,andatory requirement of Section durir-rg recovery/ a lapse the presence of independent witnesses he highlights that the that vitiates the proceedings' Add'itionally' in the testimonies' of trial Judge overlooked major contradictions betlveen ;the prosecution witnesses, including discrepancies recovelysketchandtheFsLreport,lwhichirreparal-:ly that'the 'undermine the prosecutioris version' He dmphasizes acquittal in the maln trial iudge failed to consider the appellant's case(CrimeNo.1714/23underSectionsSgslsgTPPC)'acritical s credibility He \ omission that further weakens the prosecution (PWs) are police officiald' shesses that all prosecution wiktesses co u t withnoprivatewitnessassociated,violatingprincipiesof that the prosecutioflo li) + .(, faimess and corroboration' He contends rendering t' it case is riddled with material contradictions' to convict the c) ilherently urueliable, yet the trial Judge oPted ve I + appellantwithoutaddressingthesefatalflaws.Hef"t'!r:sr non-speaking' lac(p;g argues ttrat the impugned judgment is cogent re'asoning and failing to wei$h the absenc a legal neces independent corroboration for police testimony' these errors waxr in such cases. Cumulatively, he submits that the appellant ' flre setting aside the conviction and granting benefit of doubt. ,

Gerlepil

4.Per contra, the learned Additionali Prosecutor ,, Ill (APG) has argued that the prosecution had successfillly :'loiibi established the accused's guilt beyond adt/ shar 1ow of

The testimonies cif through credible and corroborative evidenge' the complainant, mashir, and lnvestigating Officer wei'e

unshaken durihg consistent, confidence-inspiring, and remair.red

tB+

t4l

Y.

confirmed that the t"to""i"d cross-examlna tion. The FSL report weapon was in working conditiory further strengtheningi the that police witnesSes ale prosecution's case' The APG cor-rtended unless en to have acted as reliable as independent witnesses witnesses dicl trot with malice, and the absence of private weaken thc case. The prompt registration of the FIR, ProPer contradictions reinJorced documentation, and absence of maior the AfG emphasized tiiat the prosecution's stance' Additionaliy' lto crime' and t th9 illegai possession of firearms contributes evidence or testify undpl u..or"d faileid to Present any defense oath, further undermining his plea of false implication Citlng that minor discrepancieq do legal precedents, the APG asserted and' therefore' urged this C{}qt not invalidate a prosecution case the corviction and ser-ttence' - to dismiss the appeal and uphold sqbmissrons preseflted

5.Upon a detailed examination of the State's Additional Prosecutol by the appellant's counsel and the General (APG), coupled with a rigorous scrutiny ol tne.11s1

UJ

, .".ord, the following critical findings and rational conclusions Hayat' expli'citly emerge: The Complainant' ASI Mazhar Salman, Ulraiclullalr, identified,,six individuals,, (Abdul1ah, t/'il

beLn arrested On' tlig Umar, Kashif, and Adnan) as having referencecl only " three contrary, PC Hamza Khan's testimony Kamran} and also omitted the an-estees" (Ubaidullah, Umar' and appellant's name. This gtaring inlonsistency in iclentifying the accused-coupled with the mashir's failule to name Salman-' doubt on the apPellant's aileged involvenrurb' or casts significant case is fqlther presence at the scene' The prosecution's between the ttt'o primarry weakened by a direct contradiction witnesses: ASI Mazhar Hayat claimed "six arrests"' while !C a material ilconsish:nc1r HamzaKhan cited "five arrests" ' Such prosecution's narratirre 'and undermines the credibility of the raises questions about the accuracy of the entire account' Llhe

lgs

I

FI& Memo of arrest and recovery and Letter dated: 20-02-20i23. issued by the I.O. to the AIGP, Forensic Deiartment, I(arachi for FSL examinadon do not show the number'of pistol. However, ii: " when the seal of the pistol was opened at FSL, it was found to have serial number 39184. The "FSL report"i highiighted tnai ihe recovered pistol bore a "serial number 99184". However,'qlis critical detail was "never docrrmented" il the official arrest/recovery memo, nor corroborate{ by any wifoiess testimony. The absence of this important iriformation about the foundational aspect/identity of the pistol bearing serial number, further eroding trust in the prosecution', "ASI Mazhar "'oid"n.u.

Hayat" asserted that the police team arrivedl at the scene at 1'0F30 hours" and left the station on "ig-OZ-zoz3 at 0210 hours".'[r'r \ contrast, "PC Hamza Khan" stated * *u* arrived ul ,O,UrU Irours" and departed the station at "2000 houts on 19-02-2C?3", implying an arrival on "20-02-2023" due to the midnight date cour ?

transition. These irreconcilable timelines create confusiou abo,ul }-s the sequence of events and the reliability of wihress accotlllts. r rQ

The totality of these contradictions - "failure to name ,'t!e )V NG appe1lant'', "con{licting arrest figff es", "uiuepolicrJ. tarnperin g of evidence", and "chronologkal inconsistencies" - collectiveiy clisinantle the prosecution's version of events. Such n'rateliai discrepancies in core aspects of the case,rencler the evictence untrustworthy and insufficient to meet the burden of proof requfued for conviction. The prosecution si failure to prcsent. a coheren! consistent nauative foulded on verifiable fects, fata,liy undermines its credibility, thereby warranting selious cloEbt about the appellands culpability. MorJover, although.,lh-g incident occurred in a densely populated irea during morning hours, the tomplainant/Assistant Sub-lnspector (ASI) mailc no attempt to involve indepeniLent witnesses to observe thc .ureqt or the recovery process. This failure to associate independent witnesses, despite the public setting, raises questions aboqt

ts1

t6l f

procedrual compliance/ as'such st€Ps are .typically critical to ensuring transParency in law enforcedrent actions' The inconsistencies identified are not minor or peripheral but strike at the heart of the prosecution's claims. Moreover, the Appellant has already been acquitted in main Crime No.1714/2023 urrder Sections 3g5/gg7 PPC vide Judgment daleC,: 16-02-2024' In light of ttiese rational findings, the case against appellant is not made out.

6.It is a foundational principie of criininal iarv that. the prosecution must establish Surlt beyond a reasonable doubt, wittr even the slightest uncertainty favoring the accused' In a parailel scenario, as observed in Muhatnmail Tlamilani o. The State (2018 yLF. 268n, thig Court acquifted the accused by extending the I i benefit of doubt in a case under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. This position is further corroborated by the llononrable Supreme Courl of Pakistar/s nitng rnSaiian Solangi o. The Stale (2019 SCMR 8114), which underscores the imperative of adhering to this standard. ,

7.For the foregoing reasons, the In'rp'ugned Judgment dated 3L45-2024, rendered by the Trial Court, is deemed legally untenable and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the conviction and sentenie imposed on the appellant, Salman, under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sihdh Arms Act, 2013, are overtumed. He is acquitted of the charges and shall be released irnrnediately, i

urrless lawfully detained in' connection with any other p endil c case.

I