2001 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Accused had pleaded that rifle allegedly recovered from him in fact was a licensed weapon of a person who visited his Dera alongwith his rifle and when police conducted the said, the rifle was lying there and police took it into possession treating the same as a illicit weapon‑‑‑Prosecution had not denied that rifle was a licensed weapon of ‑the said other person‑‑‑Rifle, in circumstances, could not be treated as an illicit one‑‑‑Allegations that rifle was recovered from the possession of the accused, in fact had reduced to a mere technical offence because the necessary ingredient of guilt i.e. mens rea was lacking in the case‑‑‑If a licensed weapon was just left by the licence holder at the place of some of his relatives or friend, its recovery as an illicit arm should not have readily been accepted‑‑‑Possibility of explanation tendered by the accused being true, the same could not be ignored‑‑‑Extending benefit of doubt to the accused, conviction and sentence awarded to him by Courts below, were set aside, in circumstances. M. Azmat Ali for Appellant. Iram Sajjad Gul for the State. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2001. ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHARY, J.‑‑‑ This judgment dated 31‑10‑2000 has been impugned through the instant appeal. The learned trial Judge (Sardar Muhammad Rana) learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment convicted the appellant holding that .222 rifle No.B‑28431 alongwith two magazines and four live cartridges was recovered from his possession. The prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses and on the strength of the same, it was held that the recovery of the rifle had been proved, as such the appellant was convicted under section 13/XX/65 and sentenced to undergo two years' R.I.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rifle recovered from the appellant is in fact a licensed weapon of Muhammad Asghar who visited the Dera of the appellant alongwith his rifle. His rifle was lying over there when the police conducted raid and the rifle was taken into possession treating the same as an illicit weapon. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the State that rifle is a licensed weapon of Muhammad Asghar. The prosecution allegation, therefore, has to be viewed with all care and caution. The rifle being licensed weapon cannot be treated as an illicit arm. Muhammad Asghar held a valid licence for the same. The defence plea, therefore, cannot be rejected out rightly as has been done by the learned trial Judge. The allegation that rifle was recovered from the possession of appellant in fact reduces to a mere technical offence because the necessary ingredient of guilt i.e. mens rea is lacking in the present case. When the prosecution story and the defence version are juxtaposition appears that the defence version is not afterthought and the possibility of its being true cannot be ruled out. Although it has been argued by the learned counsel for the State that if a licensed weapon in some one else name and is possessed or handled by an unauthorised person, the offence under the Arms Ordinance A would be constituted. The argument is not without substance but if a licensed weapon is just left by the licence‑holder at the place of some of his relations or friend, then its recovery as an illicit arm should not have readily been accepted. The possibility of explanation tendered by the accused appellant being true cannot be ignored. The benefit of doubt is, therefore, extended to the appellant. His conviction and sentence under section 13/XX/65 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 31‑10‑2000 is set aside and he is ordered to be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case. H.B.T./I‑47/L Appeal accepted.