The appellant assails the judgment dated 10.10.2001 whereby he has been convicted under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to 7 years R.I. with Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. in a case registered vide FIR No, 125 dated 13.10.1994 at Police Station Bara Kahoo District Islamabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he led to the recovery of a pistol concealed by him in the bed of his residential room. After investigation the challan was submitted and charge was framed. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Bashir Khan and PW. 2 Muhammad Jahangir SI. The appellant was examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. He denied the recovery. He claims that the recovery has been planted on him. He did not opt to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the recovery was allegedly witnessed by Bashir Khan PW. 1 and Muhammad Ashraf not produced; that Muhammad Ashraf was given up by the prosecution as being unnecessary. The prosecution case hinges on the testimony of PW.
1. The same is not corroborated, therefore, no conviction can be made. He further adds that the parties are on inimical terms and that the prosecution in order to strengthen its murder case registered against the appellant and others planted the recovery of pistol Ex.P1.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the arguments of the appellant and argued that the prosecution has produced cogent evidence which brings guilt home to the accused.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The recovery is alleged to have been effected from the residential room "Baithak" of the appellant. PW. .1 admitted in cross-examination that this room was not locked. The appellant and his brother jointly lived in one house. The "Baithak" is located at a distance of 10/12 feet from the main A building of the appellant's house. PW. 1 pleaded ignorance as to whether the "Baithak" is jointly possessed or owned by the appellant and his brothers. Thin witness is a resident of Dhoke namely Bhakrran. Dakhli jugiot. The distance from his house to the place of recovery is about one KM. Neither Councillor Lambardar nor independent respectable from the area was associated in recovery proceedings. Statement of PW. 1 remained uncorroborated. PW. 1 is closely related to the complainant side, who got a case registered against the appellant under Section 302/324/148/149 PPG vide FIR No, 106/94. Murder case was registered on 3.8.1994, while the recovery was got effected on 13.10.1994. It is not believable that the appellant will keep pistol in his residential "Baithak". Usually the persons in the village visit each other frequently. The "Baithak" is accessible to the visitors in the family. The place of recovery was not in exclusive possession of the appellant. The prosecution failed to establish case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
7. In view of what has been stated above this appeal succeeds and the conviction of the appellant is set-aside.