2010 P Cr (PLP)

MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, J.

Appellant Muhammad Arshad has filed this appeal against judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Haripur, whereby he was convicted and sentenced under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance to five years, three months and ten days S.I. However, benefit of section 382-B was extended to him.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Ali Asghar A.-S.I. stated that on 20-6-2003 on the pointation of appellant he recovered and took into possession a .30 bore pistol Exh.P.1 without number along with five live rounds Exh.P.2 and Magazine P.3. The appellant named it a weapon of offence used in the commission of crime reported vide F.I.R. No.154 of 2003.

3. After completion of investigation the S.H.O. submitted challan. Formal charge was framed to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. On conclusion, the learned trial Court finding guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as fore-said.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the occurrence in case F.I.R. No.154 of 2003 took place on 25-5-2003. The appellant remained on pre-arrest bail when his pre-arrest bail was not confirmed and arrested on 20-6-2003. It does not appeal to prudent mind that the appellant would keep the unlicensed .30 bore pistol along with five live rounds and magazine after commission of crime under bed covers of his residential room. It was further contended that the learned trial Court was prejudiced because the appellant was convicted for life imprisonment in the afore-said F.I.R. No.154 of 2003 and allegedly the weapon of offence was recovered on the pointation of accused. It was further contended that the trial Judge was so biased that though it was a false and fabricated case yet the accused/appellant was convicted and awarded sentence of five years, three months and ten days while maximum punishment for the offence of section 13 Arms Ordinance prescribed by law is three years only.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned State counsel and perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the appellant was involved in case F.I.R. No.154 of 2003 registered under section 302, P.P.C. and during interrogation he allegedly led the police to the recovery of alleged crime pistol but the allegation by itself would not prove the commission of offence without sufficient evidence. The appellant is behind the bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 20-6-2003, almost about more than six years and he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment in the instant case. As the appellant in the murder case has already been acquitted vide our detailed judgment recorded in Cr.A.No.90 of 2006, therefore, due to lack of evidence he deserves acquittal in the instant case too.

7. Consequently, on acceptance of this appeal, the impugned conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. H.B.T./22/P Appeal accepted.