2011 PLP 1094 (YLR)

MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.

The prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. No.21 dated 1-2-2006 is that during investigation of murder case F.I.R. No.238 dated 6-11-2005, one rifle of .222 bore crime weapon of case F.I.R. Mentioned above was recovered from the bashes in the vicinity of land owned by one Barkat Khan on pointation of accused Umar Zeb. After completion of investigation, challan was put in court where accused claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as four witnesses in support of its case. After closure of prosecution evidence accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He neither opted to be examined on oath nor produced defence evidence. On conclusion of trial, accused was convicted and awarded one year R.I. under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. Appellant has tiled this criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence.

2. It is urged that the appellant has not voluntarily pointed out the unlicensed .222 bore rifle to be the crime weapon in the murder case of F.I.R. No.238 of 2005 rather the same was planted by the I.O. in connivance of complainant party to strengthen the prosecution case.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and State and have scanned the record of the case.

4. Record of the case bears that the I.O. has recovered unlicensed .222 bore rifle crime weapon of murder case F.I.R. No.238 of 2005 from the bushes in the vicinity of lands owned by one Barkat Khan on pointation of appellant in presence of police party. Shahzada FC No 125 was examined as P.W.1., who is the marginal witness to the recovery memo vide which the unlicensed .222 bore rifle was recovered in the manner as narrated above. Taj Muhammad A.S.-I., who was examined as P.W.2., has fully corroborated the testimony of P.W.1. in respect of recovery by stating that after interrogation, the accused disclosed that he is going to show and point out the crime weapon whereafter he led the police party to a place in the lauds of Barkat Khan and on his pointation I.O.. recovered the rifle in question from the bushes. Defence could not shatter the veracity of testimony of these P.Ws. in cross-examination, which is otherwise trust worthy and confidence-inspiring.

5. The other aspect of the case is that the accused was tried in case F.I.R. No.238 of 2005, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal against conviction and sentence has been dismissed. The empties recovered f from the spot were sent along with rifle for analysis of Fire-arms Expert, whose report is in positive. The appellant has failed to produce ally licence or permit for keeping the said rifle in his custody. In the facts and circumstances of the case the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.

6. Consequently, the appeal being without merit is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./422/P Appeal dismissed.