1985 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Sentence‑‑Concurrent‑ Unlicensed carbine recovered from accused during investigation of ii murder case‑‑Sentence of 1 year maintained but said sentence ordered to run concurrently to sentence of accused in murder case. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi assisted by M.A. Zafar for Appellant. Ch. Sabir for A.‑G. for the State. Dates of hearing: 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd April, 1985. QURBAN SADIQ IKRAM, J.‑‑

This is an appeal by Ghulam Rasul against his conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha wide judgment, dated 27‑3‑1982 by which he was sentenced to one year's R.I. under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1865.

2. The prosecution case is that Ghulam Rasul appellant was required by the Police in a murder case. On 26‑2‑1980 the Police raided the Dera of Ghulam Rasul accused. He was present there and arrested. On search of his person, carbine P.1 and 3 live cartridges P.2/1‑3 were recovered from his person. These were taken in possession vide memo. Exh. P.A. by S.I. Ghulam Qasim (P.W.2) in the presence of Gul Muhammad (P.W.1) and Muhammad Iqbal (given up P.W.). The accused could not produce licence for the weapon. He was, therefore, challaned and convicted as stated above.

3. We have heard the earned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record of this case. The accused denied the charge. He pleaded innocence but did not examine any evidence in defence. The prosecution case is supported by Gul Muhammad (P.W.1) and S.I. Ghulam Qasim (P.W.2). It was admitted by Gul Muhammad P.W. that Muhammad Khan, an uncle of Ghulam Rasul accused, was murdered about two years back and that Nadir, a cousin of his father, was. challaned in that case. He also admitted that some co‑accused of Ghulam Rasul accused including his cousins in the main murder case were prosecution witnesses against Nadir. He also admitted that he was not a Lambardar nor any other village official was summoned by the Police at that time. We have gone through the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses. They made consistent statements to support the case. We find no discrepancy in their statements. It is correct that Gul Muhammad was on inimical terms with Ghulam Rasul appellant but that fact alone would not discredit him. Even if for the sake of arguments his evidence is excluded from consideration, then also we find nothing to disbelieve S.I. Ghulam Qasim (P.W.2). who investigated the main murder case. We rely on Kamir v. Nazir Ahmad and others 1980 S 'C M R 7,

81. It was held in Kamir's case at page. 794 that:‑- "Even though witness Khushi Muhammad was not produced, and there might have been some litigation between the respondent and the recovery witness Sanata, yet the evidence of the Investigating Officer could not be brushed aside, specially when there was no motive on the part of the complainant party to falsely implicate the respondent. There is no rule that the evidence of a Police Officer as to the recovery of incriminating articles cannot be accepted, whatsoever the circumstances of the case"

4. In view of the above, we find no merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, we order that the sentence of Ghulam Rasul appellant in this case will run concurrently to his sentence in the main murder case. H.A.K Appeal dismissed