1993 PCr (PLP)

S. 16

Appreciation of evidence

Allegation against accused was that he had delivered his licensed gun to co-accused who was accused in a murder case and who led to recovery of same which was secured and was attested by prosecution witness

Accused denied prosecution evidence and stated that gun m dispute belonged to him and he had not handed over same to co-accused-- No independent public witness from locality had been associated in recovery proceedings

General apathy being that police in order to show its movement and progress in cases plant arms on different persons, police for strengthening its connected murder case had planted recovery of gun on co-accused-- Prosecution having failed to prove its case reasonably against accused, he was acquitted of charge. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi and MA. Zafar for Appellant. Abul Fateh for the State. Date of hearing: 30th September. 1990. The appellant was awarded conviction and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under section 16 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 vide judgment dated 24-9-1985 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. Hence this appeal.

2. The allegation against the appellant was that he had delivered his .12 bore licensed gun to one Muhammad Suleman, accused in a murder case who led to the recovery of the said gun P.1 which was secured by P.W.3 vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by P.W.2 Rehmat Ali and P.W. Ataullah (given up). The appellant had not pleaded guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined three prosecution witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Safarash Hussain Shah, A.S.I. on 15-7-1983 while working as Moharrir Head Constable received complaint Exh.P.A. sent by Muhammad Rafique S.1. and he recorded the F.I.R. Exh.PA./1. P.W.2 Rehmat Ali stated that he joined the investigation of murder case against the accused/appellant alongwith P.W. Ataullah. Suleman accused while in police custody led to the recovery of double barrel gun P.1 from the room of his Haveli secured by P.W.3 Muhammad Rafique vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by P.W.2. P.W.3 had interrogated the accused who led to the recovery of .12 bore gun P.1 from his house which was secured by him vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by the same witness.

3. The appellant denied the prosecution evidence and stated that the gun P.1 belonged to him and he had not handed over the same to his co-accused Muhammad Suleman. It is the general apathy that the police in order to show its movement and progress in the criminal cases plant arms on different persons and in the instant case the police for strengthening its connected murder case planted recovery of gun P.1 on Muhammad Suleman, the co accused of the appellant in a murder case. No independent public witness from the locality has been associated in the recovery proceedings. The prosecution has failed to prove its case reasonably against the appellant. The criminal appeal of the appellant is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. H.B.T./A-278/L Appeal allowed.