1994 P Cr (PLP)

RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.

Muhammad Latif son of Fazal Karim was sent up for trial by Police Station Kharian, for an offence under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala vide his judgment, dated 11-11-1990 convicted and sentenced him under section 5 of the above-said Act to six years' R.I. His whole property was also directed to be forfeited in favour of the State under section 5-A of the Act. He was, however, given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.

2. The prosecution story in brief was that Muhammad Latif accused was being interrogated by Muhammad Hussain, S.I., in connection with a case registered against him under Hudood Ordinance. During interrogation, on 15-1-1988 he disclosed that he had kept two hand-grenades in his village. He led the police party to his house, from where he got recovered two hand -grenades with two fuses. Since he could not produce any licence for the same, therefore, the present case. After due investigation the accused was sent for trial.

3. Prosecution in support of its case produced five witnesses. P.W.1. Ghalib Hussain, A.S.I. stated that on the basis of complaint Exh.P.B. he recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A. on 15-1-1988. Muhammad Asghar, A.S.I., P.W.2 stated that on 15-1-1988, in his presence Muhammad Latif accused, who was in custody in connection with another case, was interrogated and he led to the recovery of two hand-grenades P.1 and P.2 with two fuses P.3 and P.4 from inside his Kotha. He signed the recovery memo. Asghar AA Head Constable, P.W.3 stated that the appellant in his presence had got recovered hand-grenades with two fuses, which were secured by the Investigating Officer and he had signed the recovery memo. Exh.P.C. Shahid Mehmood Khan, Assistant Inspector of Explosives, P.W.4, stated that on 7-11-1988 he examined the hand -grenades P.1 and P.2 with two fuses P.3 and P.4 and gave an opinion that they were serviceable and anti-personnel. Muhammad Hussain, S.I., P.W.5 stated that he interrogated the appellant in connection with a case under Hudood Ordinance, during which he got recovered hand-grenades with two fuses. Since he could not produce any licence or permit, therefore, he drafted a complaint and got the case registered. Thereafter, he after usual investigation challaned the accused. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. He also appeared in his defence on oath. The appellant had filed the appeal through jail. Mr. Dil Muhammad Tarar, Advocate was appointed by the State to represent the appellant. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not free from doubt. Submitted that after interrogation the appellant had led to his house for the recovery of hand-grenades, which was at a distance of 30 k.m. and in such circumstances, some independent witness should have been associated. Argued that the appellant being a poor man could not possibly be in possession of hand-grenades.

4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. Prosecution in order to establish its case produced five witnesses. The witnesses were cross-examined at length by the Court. The appellant had only put one question to each of them, which was to the effect if they were prepared to swear about the guilt of the appellant on the Holy Qur'an, which was replied in the affirmative by the witnesses. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the witnesses had any motive to implicate the appellant. A hand-grenade is not a type of explosive substance, which is easily available, therefore, the chances of plantation of hand-grenades with fuses on the appellant by the police in the absence of any motive can safely be ruled out. As far as associating some respectables of the locality is concerned, neither any question to any of the witnesses was put why it was not done, nor we consider that the omission is of such a grave nature, which would render their statements not worth reliance. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond doubt. Therefore, the appeal fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1538/L Appeal dismissed.