Appeal Khalid Shah

8/8/2019 Appeal Khalid Shah

1/3

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.vsKhalid 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 nameKhalid 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/-


2/3

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 TAHIRUDDINVSTHE 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/-


3/3

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 ALIversus.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: ____________

Documents

Appeal Khalid Shah