1988 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Ghulam Sarwar for Appellant. Sh. Islam for the State. Syed Waheed‑ur‑Rehman Gillani for the Complainant. Dates of hearing: 13th and 17th October, 1987. This is an appeal filed by Abdul Jabbar, appellant, against his conviction and sentence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that Abdul Jabbar, appellant, while in custody in respect of a case relating to the murder or one Haji Musa, deceased, got recovered .12 bore single barred gun P8 from a Jisti Petti in his residential house in the presence of Wali Muhammad PW1, Muhammad Akram S.I. PW3 and Mauj Khan (given up PW). Since the appellant did not possess any licence for the said gun, he was accordingly challaned. 2‑A. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant; the complainant and the State and have perused the record. In the first place the murder of Haji Musa took place on 18‑12‑1983. Although Abdul Jabbar, appellant, was arrested on 28‑12‑1983, he did not lead to the recovery of the gun P8 till 1‑1‑1984. It is hard to believe that the appellant would have retained the weapon of offence for ten days, i.e. for the period he was not arrested. Be that as it may, the gun P8 is alleged to have been recovered from the Jasti Petti lying in his residential house. According to Wali Muhammad PW2, the door of the house was open but the Jasti Petti was locked and the Thanedar had open the lock or the Jasti Petti from the key which was already with him. According to Muhammad Akram S.I. PW3, the door of the house was opened but the Jasti Petti, from where the gun was recovered, was not locked and he denied the suggestion that he had the key of that lock, He also admitted that he had not joined the witnesses from the locality from where the recovery was effected. There is discrepancy as regards whether the Jasti Petti was locked and whether the Thanedar had got the key of the same, with which he had opened the Jasti Petti. In the absence of the recovery being witnessed by an independent person of the locality from where the recovery was effected, The evidence does not appear to be firm and consistent as to warrant a conviction. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of Abdul Jabbar, appellant, is set aside. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. S.A./A‑208/L Appeal accepted.