ABDUL SAMAD BROHI vs State S — 2023 YLR 2227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDUL SAMAD BROHI VS State S. 23(1)(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342--- Possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Evidence not confronted to the accused in his S.342, Cr.P.C. statement---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed gun 12 bore along with five live cartridges of 12 bore were recovered from the possession of the accused---Piece of evidence which had not been confronted to the accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. could not be used against him---Ballistic Expert Report was not confronted to the accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---If Ballistic Expert Report was excluded from the consideration then there remained nothing available with the prosecution to establish that the alleged gun was in working condition---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL SAMAD BROHI VS State S. 23(1)(a)---Possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Infirmities---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed gun 12 bore along with five live cartridges of 12 bore were recovered from the possession of the accused---Evidence of complainant was that a gun and five live cartridges of 12 bore were recovered from the accused which was sealed at the spot under the mashirnama prepared in the presence of the mashirs who had signed the same---However, when such piece of evidence was confronted with the evidence of mashir, he did not depose even a single word in respect of signature of other mashir---Said singular infirmity in the case itself was sufficient to hold that the prosecution had not proved the case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt---Prosecution witnesses in their evidence deposed that when they saw the accused he tried to escape from there but the first document prepared at the spot (Mashirnama of arrest and recovery) and the FIR were silent about the escape of the accused, however it was mentioned in the mashirnama and the FIR that accused avoided arrest---All the witnesses of arrest and recovery were Police Officials and no efforts were made to join the private witnesses in the recovery proceedings though police had sufficient time after receiving spy information---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL SAMAD BROHI VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single circumstance creats reasonable doubt in the prudent mind, then its benefit will be extended in favour of the accused not as a matter of grace or concession, but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL SAMAD BROHI VS State S. 23(1)(a)---Possession of illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe transmission of the recovered weapon for analysis doubtful---Prosecution case was that an unlicensed gun 12 bore along with five live cartridges of 12 bore were recovered from the possession of the accused---Police witness who deposited the gun for the Forensic Science Laboratory Report had not produced the entry of the roznamcha register showing him receiving the case property---In his examination-in-chief, said witness had deposed that Investigating Officer handed over to him one parcel of case property, while in his cross-examination, he had pointed out from his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., that he had received the parcel of gun and empties separately, which was not the case of prosecution---Perusal of report reflected that the property of the main case and present case were sent together---However, it did not reflect from the report that the gun and the cartridges allegedly recovered from the accused were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory and only the crime number was mentioned---Police Constable who carried the case property and deposited the same with the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, deposed that on 16.02.2021 he received the case property from the Investigation Officer but deposited the same with the office of Ballistic Expert on 17.02.2021, but he had not explained as to where the property was for one day---Such failure created very serious doubt in the safe transmission of the alleged recovered gun and made the recovery doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL SAMAD BROHI VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle---Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt---Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.

ABDUL SAMAD BROHI vs State S — 2023 YLR 2227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR