1989 P Cr (PLP)

Hayat Junejo for Appellant. Muzaffar Hassan for the Stan. Date of hearing: 21st August, 1986. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 3‑3‑1986 of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, whereby he has convicted appellant named above for offence under section 13(e), Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to R.I. for one year. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant Jan Muhammad and his six other co‑accused were tried by the same trial Court in a case for offences under sections 148, 452, 302, 307 and 149, P.P.C. in which they were convicted and sentenced separately. Since gun allegedly recovered from present appellant was unlicensed, used in the crime in connected case, he was tried for the offence under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance and convicted and sentenced as stated above. After hearing both these appeals together, in the connected appeal, I have acquitted all the appellants including the present appellant. Evidence produced in this case is composed of two witnesses Mashir Muhammad Ali and S.H.O. Sarfraz Ahmad. Evidence of both these witnesses has been subjected to severe criticism in the connected appeal. So far Mashir Muhammad Ali is concerned, he has supported the prdsecutibn in the instant case but did not support the prosecution in the connected case before the trial Court as such he was declared hostile and cross‑examined. In this appeal in the cross‑examination this Mashir has admitted in the cross‑examination that he was declared hostile in the connected murder case and was cross‑examined by A.P.P. He was confronted with affidavit sworn by him and he disowned the same. In that affidavit this Mashir had stated that he had gone to Sakran Police Station where signatures were obtained from him on blank papers by S.H.O., who told him that he was being made Mashir in this case. In the connected murder case no reliance was placed on the testimony of this Mashir. In the instant case also for the same reasons I cannot put reliance upon the evidence of this witness. He has compromised his integrity and has no sanctity for truth. He is not at all worthy of reliance. ' Evidence of S.H.O. also does not inspire confidence for the reason that in the connected case no reliance was placed upon his testimony as his investigation was found to be far from honest. Gun was recovered from appellant from the hedge of the house, which is accessible to all. There is nothing m the evidence of this witness to suggest that gun was concealed in the hedge in such a g manner that nobody could see or acquire knowledge about it and exclusive possession and knowledge could only be attributed to the present appellant. I, therefore, hold that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond doubt as such I set aside conviction and sentence and allow the appeal. Appellant be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. M.Y.H./J‑73/K Appeal allowed.