IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE NAWABSHAH.

Cr. Appeal No. of 2003

Khalid Hussain s/o Nasir Ali Shah,

confined in Distt: Jail Nawabshah………………….………..Appellant

versus

The State

Crime No. 17/2003, U/s: 13-D Arms Ord.

P.S: Daulatpur.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION UNDER SECTION 408 Cr.P.C.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 6.11.2003 passed
by learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Daulatpur in criminal case No. 26/2003 “The
State….vs…Khalid Ali” vide Crime No. 17/2003, U/s: 13-D Arms Ord.P.S:
Daulatpur, in which learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentence
him to undergo R.I. for one year. The appellant therefore prefer the appeal with
request that the same may be set-aside on consideration of following facts and
grounds.

FACTS.

Brief facts as per F.I.R. are that on 15.6.2003 A.S.I Abdul Hamid Khoso of
police Station Daulatpur went for usual patrolling along with P.C Bashir Ahmed and
driver P.C. Ghulam Hussain vide entry No.16/2000. During patrolling while they
reached on Pubjo cross National Highway they saw one person on eastern side of
road. On seeing police he tried to runaway but arrested. He disclosed his name
Khalid s/o Nasir Ali Shah. On his personnel search recovered one 30 bore un-licence
T.T pistol and 5 live bullets. A.S.I prepared mashirnama which was attested by
mashirs P.C Bashir Ahmed and driver Ghulam Hussain Then he brought to police
station where F.I.R was lodged against him. After usual investigation, challan was
produced in the Court of learned Civil Judge and F.C.M. Daulatpur and ultimately
convicted the appellant, hence this appeal.

Contd. on page 2/-

 Page No.2/-

GROUNDS

1. That the order of conviction of appellant is illegal and not being based on the
evidence brought on record of the Trial Court.

2. That the learned Trial Court has failed to apply his judicial mind before
passing the judgment under appeal, but the said judgment has been passed in
hurry without considering the facts and circumstances.

3. That the learned Trial Court has failed to consider this fact that ASI Abdul is
complainant and I.O. of this case, while the mashirs of alleged recovery are
also police officials, whereas alleged place of recovery is thickly populated
area. In the case of TAHIRUDDIN…VS…THE STATE reported 1998
Cr.LJ 741 (Karachi), Honourable High Court Karachi held as under:
“Section 13-D… No conviction can be based on
evidence of I.O. who is also complainant in the case
when evidence of independent P.W. has not
supported prosecution case”

4. That the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that P.W 1 Arshad
Ali in his statement Exhibit 5 admitted that “there is village of Langah near
place of recovery, but no private mashirs was called by A.S.I”, how the
police had not joint the private persons of such village to attest the recovery
memo which creates doubts of prosecution case.

5. That the learned Trial Court has misread the evidence as well as available
record , and discarded the contradictions. As per F.I.R time of recovery is
2130 hours, while in question No.1 of statement under section 342
Cr.P.C. time of arrest/recovery is mentioned 2100 hours, while P.W. 2
Complainant/I.O. Abdul Hamid Khoso examined as Exh.6 .he deposed
in examination in chief that they went for patrolling at about 2130
hours, in cross examination he admitted that they patrolled half an
hours hence time of alleged recovery was 2200 hours. P.W.1 P.C.
Arshad Ali examined as Exh.5, he deposed in examination in chief that
time of departure for patrolling was 2000 hours and they reached in 20
minutes, therefore time of alleged recovery was 2020 hours, Record as
well as statements of both PWs are contradictory and not corroborated to
each other. Therefore false implication of appellant/severe doubts in
prosecution case could not ruled out,
Contd. on page 3/-
 Page No.3/-
6. That learned Trial Court in statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. has not put
any specific question about licence of weapon nor case property was present
at that time.. I relied upon 2003 P.Cr.LJ 359

7. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciate the evidence, that alleged
weapon has not sealed, nor sent to ballistic expert as such P.Ws admitted that
no mark of identification was on the pistol, nor mentioned in the mashirnama,
but on property produced in the Trial Court there was mark of 66 in
triangle. I relied upon the case i.e. ASHIQUE ALI…versus….THE STATE,
reported in 2002 P.Cr.LJ 450 (Karachi).

8. That other ground will be urged at the time of arguments.

9. That original judgment is submitted herewith.

Advocate for Appellant.

Dated: ____________