PC Veeram Khan vs State S — 2024 YLR 2323 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.

PC Veeram Khan VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--- Criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---accused were charged for misappropriating service rifle G-3, magazine and bullets---although in case of one of the accused the alleged offence related to the year 2004 whereas in the other case the alleged incident pertained to the year 2008, but despite that the FIRs in both the cases were registered on one and same day in the year 2011---It was not understandable that what was the point in not taking any action in respect of the former case which allegedly took place in the year 2004 and then registering the FIR in said case along with the latter case simultaneously---Said fact gave strength to the plea raised on behalf of the accused that the rifles were changed by Police Officials/witnesses---Besides, admittedly a departmental enquiry was also conducted in respect of alleged offence, but neither any enquiry report had been produced during course of evidence, nor the Enquiry Officer who allegedly conducted the enquiry was examined by the prosecution---Such fact also put a dent in the prosecution case---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PC Veeram Khan VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Delay in issuing the Ballistic Expert Report---Effect---accused were charged for misappropriating service rifle G-3, magazine and bullets---In the case of one of the accused, report of Chemical Examiner was issued in the year 2011---In fact, the rifle and magazines etc. were brought and produced by the said accused before the complainant on 01.9.2009, whereas report of the Ballistic Expert was issued on 01.7.2011 i.e. after a delay of 22 months, hence no sanctity could be attached to said report---In case of other accused, the Rifle allegedly brought and produced by the accused before the complainant was not even sent to the Ballistic Expert---In fact, according to the complainant himself, it was sent for verification to the armourer, who had categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was not a qualified Ballistic Expert, despite that he issued the certificate---Said expert admitted that neither his name was mentioned in the charge sheet as a witness, nor his statement was recorded during the investigation by the Investigating Officer---according to said witness, the rifle was not sealed at the time when the same was produced before him and that he did not make any entry in the roznamcha regarding the checking of weapons, nor produced the same before the Trial Court---Said witness also admitted that he had remained with aSI in order to assist him---In view of said situations, the certificate issued by said witness in respect of the rifle allegedly deposited by accused was also of no evidentiary value---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PC Veeram Khan VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Non-association of private witnesses---Effect---accused were charged for misappropriating service rifle G-3, magazine and bullets---as per record, there seemed to be violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., as no private person was associated as mashir---although it had categorically been admitted by prosecution witnesses that private persons were available at the relevant time---Police witness admitted in his cross-examination that no private person was called to act as mashir---In the other case, he admitted that no private person was called by the Investigating Officer to act as mashir in that case---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PC Veeram Khan VS State Conviction---Benefit of doubt---Principle---Conviction must be based and founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt---Any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PC Veeram Khan VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Delay of more than two years in lodging FIR---Consequential---accused were charged for misappropriating service rifle G-3, magazine and bullets---Record showed that the FIR was registered after a delay of more than two years as, according to the complainant, on 19.7.2008 he had issued and handed over G-3 Rifle bearing No.89346, with five magazines and 100 bullets of G-3 to accused for performing his official duty who remained absent from his duty from 27.07.2008 and did not deposit the arm and ammunition, therefore, such report was sent to the high-ups---On 01.09.2009 the accused appeared and brought the rifle etc. in presence of two Police Constables---On checking, it was found that the rifle was not with same number and that it was a fake rifle---First Information Report was lodged on 18.06.2011---No explanation had been furnished by the prosecution as to why FIR was not registered when the rifle and magazines etc. were not deposited by the accused on the day when the same were to be deposited under the relevant procedure/practice and even on the day when the accused had brought and produced a fake rifle etc. before the complainant---In the circumstances, apparently, in the case of accused FIR was registered after an inordinate delay of more than two years---Same was the position in other case relating to other accused, wherein the delay was even for a longer period i.e. about seven years, as the arms and ammunition were issued to said accused on 31.01.2004---No explanation, at all, had been furnished by the prosecution for such a long delay in both the cases---Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR created doubts about the involvement of actual culprits as the probability of manipulation in such circumstances could not be ruled out---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PC Veeram Khan VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Misappropriation not proved---accused were charged for misappropriating service rifle G-3, magazine and bullets---Prosecution had alleged that accused had misappropriated the official weapons viz. the rifles but said charge had not been established by the prosecution through its evidence---In case of one of the accused, concerned police official stated and admitted in his cross-examination that alleged G-3 rifle produced by aSI was not in sealed condition nor its mashirnama was prepared at the time of its recovery---Moreover, one of the witnesses had stated in clear terms before the Trial Court that on 18.06.2011 aSI Incharge came along with a letter issued by the then SSP and disclosed that the rifle had been stolen---Most of the witnesses denied to have witnessed the incident---Laboratory report was also issued in the year 2011 i.e. two years after the incident---Though per prosecution case, accused allegedly produced rifles before the concerned yet no such entry was kept by the police nor any memo. of its recovery was prepared---Even the officer before whom the accused had allegedly produced the rifles did not issue any receipt or acknowledgement duly signed/verified by the accused over the memo/register or any document---Hence, it could not safely be said that the accused had produced alleged rifles as per claim of the prosecution---Even at the time of producing of rifles before the concerned, no other witness was available or arranged to witness the recovery proceedings from the accused---In such a situation, question of misappropriation as defined under S.409, P.P.C was not established by the prosecution---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PC Veeram Khan VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of witnesses---accused were charged for misappropriating service rifle G-3, magazine and bullets---From perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as discrepancies and admissions/lacunas left by the prosecution itself, the prosecution itself had dented its own case by not following the practice, procedure and the law---Moreover, alleged rifles were not sealed at the time of their recovery nor such memos. were adduced in evidence at the time of trial---Due to such discrepancies and faults on the part of prosecution, evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses had been vitiated by the prosecution itself which created a lot of doubts into its veracity---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH PC Veeram Khan VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 129(g)---Criminal breach of trust, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Withholding material witnesses---accused were charged for misappropriating service rifle G-3, magazine and bullets---Record showed that the mashir of recovery in both the cases was given up and was not examined by the prosecution---Likewise, witness who, according to the complainant, was handed over the arm and ammunition to be kept as 'amanat' was also given up in the case of accused---In that view of the matter, in light of art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, strong inference/ presumption could be gathered that had the said witnesses been examined, they would not have supported the case of prosecution---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

PC Veeram Khan vs State S — 2024 YLR 2323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR