1977 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑ Recovery‑

Evidence, appreciation of‑One witness to recovery of alleged illicit arms inimical towards petitioner while other hand‑picked witness of police belonging to a different place than that of recovery‑Evidence of such witnesses, held, could not be relied upon as a valid basis for conviction‑Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances.‑[Recovery). Raja Afrasaib Khan for Petitioner. Kh. Shaukat Ali for A.‑G. for the State. Dates of hearing: 19th and 20th May 1976. Maqsood Ahmad petitioner has filed this revision to challenge the. dismissal of his appeal on 24‑2‑1965 by the Sessions Judge, Lyallpur against his conviction and sentence of R. I. for one year recorded on 30‑1‑1965 by Magistrate 1st Class Toba Tek Singh, under section 19 of the Arms Act, 1878.

2. The petitioner had been involved in a case under section 307, P. P. C. in which the use of firearms had been alleged. It was in that connection that the police had arrested the petitioner and had, at his pointing, recovered from his residential house gun Exh. P. 1, revolver Exh. P. 2, two cartridges Exh. P. 3/1.2 and three grounds Exh. P. 4/1.3. The petitioner had no licence in respect of the weapons and the ammunition. The recovery of the incriminating articles was proved through Muhammad Ali son of Allah Dill. (P. W. 2) Muhammad Shafi (P. W. 3) and Ghulam Muhammad A. S. 1. (P. W. 4). The petitioner had denied the recovery and had explained that he had been involved by Muhammad Ali son of Fazal Din (P. W. 1) on account of enmity. He had, in his defence, examined Muhammad Sharif (D. W. 1) and Khurshid (D. W. 2) who stated that the petitioner was of good character and that nothing had been recovered from him by the police. Both the courts below, however, found him guilty.

3. There is objection to reliance being placed on Muhammad Shafi (P. W. 3) on the ground that he is brother of Muhammad .Ali son of Fazal Din (P. W. 1) who has been inimically disposed towards the petitioner and who had also been the complainant in the main case under section 307, 1f. P. C., which had ended in acquittal of the petitioner and his co‑accused. I find it very strange that the police selected the brother of the complainant to be a witness of recovery because he cannot be termed to be an independent person. It is, therefore, not safe to rely on his testimony. As regards the other witness, i e. Muhammad Ali son of Allah Din (P. W. 2) he is not a person related to the complainant party but he appears to be a handpicked witness of the police because he had himself admitted that he was known to the Thanedar, and that he had on a previous occasion joined a patrol party and had also once joined a police Nakabandi. I also find that the witness belongs to village 334 J. B. and as such he is a person from a different village than that from where the recovery had been affected. Then there is the admission made by him that the recovery document had been prepared not at the spot but at the dera of Wali Muhammad lambardar which was a bazar away from the house of the petitioner. The effect of all this must be and is that his evidence cannot be relied upon as a valid basis for conviction of the petitioner.

4. In this view of the matter, I accept the revision, set aside the convic tion and sentence recorded by the Courts below and acquits the petitioner. He is on bail and is discharged from the bail bond. Revision allowed.