1975 P Cr (PLP)

Aftab Farrukh for Appellant. Ghulam Ali Mubashir for the State. Dates of hearing : 20th and 21st May 1975. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, J.‑‑Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Sharif has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur vide his judgment dated 13th August 1974, whereby he sentenced Muhammad Aslam appellant to one year's R. I. under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for keeping rifle P. 1 in his possession without any licence.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that an F. I. R. No. 114 was lodged at the instance of Sher Muhammad son of Fazal Din at Police Station Dijkot, District Lyallpur on 19th July 1972, in which the appellant and some other persons were named as the culprits. During the investigation of that case Muhammad Aslam appellant was arrested by the police and an unlicensed rifle P. l was recovered from him and was taken into possession the police vide memo. Exh. P. A. The appellant was challaned and ultimately tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the result whereof has already been stated above.

3. In support of its case the prosecution produced two witnesses namely, Fazal Muhammad S. I (P.W.1) and Hassan Muhammad P. W. 2, in whose presence the rifle P.1 was recovered from the appellant.

4. When examined at the trial, the appellant pleaded innocence and denied the recovery of rifle P. 1 from his possession.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for tilt‑ appellant as well as the learned State to Counsel and have perused the record of the case very carefully with their assistance. The prosecution has produced Fazal Muhammad S. I. (P. W. 1) and Hassan Muhammad P. W. 24 in whose presence the unlicensed rifle P. 1 was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the kotha of his cattle shed. This cattle she; leas been prove) to be property of this appellant. The rifle was lying hidden under the chaff, a place which was within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant. It has been urged that Hassan Muhammad P. W. 2 was related to Khurshid deceased and thus his evidence was interested. Mere relationship does not cast any reflection on the evidence of this witness whose testimony has been fully corroborated by Fazal Muhammad S. I., all independent and disinterested witness. The appellant has failed to produce any defence to controvert the recovery made at his instance, therefore, the factum of recovery stands fully proved against him. The learned trial Court has fully considered this aspect of the case and has rightly believed these two witnesses for good reasons.

6. In the light of the above discussion, we see no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed