M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- The appellant namely Hamaad son of Muhammad Arshad, was tried bythe learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad in case F.l,R. No.224 of 2002, dated 15-5-2002, registered with Police Station Thikrewala, Faisalabad, for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965. The learned trial Judge, by virtue of his judgment, dated 29-10-2003 found him guilty of the said charge, convicted him under section 13 of the Ordinance (supra) and sentenced him to suffer four years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default in the payment thereof to further undergo S.I. For one month. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended to him.
2. The allegation in the P.I.R. Registered at the instance of Qadir Bakhsh S.-1./Investigating Officer, Incharge Police Post Chak No.30/JB, Police Station Thikrewala, District Faisalabad was that during investigation of case F.l.R. No.186 of 2002 under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. The appellant while on physical remand with the police, had disclosed that . 30 bore pistol which he had used during the occurrence and had been concealed by him in a room of his Dera, could be got recovered by him; resultantly, while leading the police party to his Dera, he got the same recovered from the western corner of the room; on unloading the magazine four Iive bullets were also recovered; the appellant failed to produce any licence of the weapon as a result of which the instant case had been registered.
3. At the commencement of trial, charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965 was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as three witnesses namely Muhammad Ashraf son of Sher Muhammad (P.W.l), Qadir Bakhsh, S.-1./lnvestigating Officer (P.W.2) and Muhammad Arif, A.S.-1. (P.W.3), whereas Sajawal son of Muhammad Ali who was a recovery witness, being unnecessary, had been given up. Thereafter the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Wherein he pleaded not guilty, professed his innocence and had alleged that the police had cooked a story and the P. Ws. Had deposed falsely at the instance of the complainant and the police. Upon culmination of the trial, the learned trial Court found the prosecution case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the latter was convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. It is the said judgment, which has been impugned by the appellant by means of this appeal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it has been noticed that it was not the case of the prosecution that the appellant was armed with a pistol or that he had used the same during the course of main transaction which culminated in registration of F.I.R. No,186 of 2002, under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Thikrewala, District Faisalabad whereas the case of the prosecution as depicted in the said F.I.R. Was that the petitioner who was armed with a Kassi, with which he gave a blow to the deceased. The private recovery witness Muhammad Ashraf was the complainant of the F.I.R. Whereas the other recovery witness namely Raja Sajawal had been given up as stated elsewhere. Muhammad Ashraf complainant obviously was an interested witness in the case, being the complainant in the main murder case and his sole testimony needed to be corroborated by some independent witness in the peculiar circumstances of the case, which is not forthcoming on record. There does not appear to be any plausible reason for the appellant to have made a confession qua the weapon in question and thereafter lead to the recovery of the same, which was not the case of the prosecution. There are some doubts in the prosecution story vis-a-vis possession of fire-arm by the appellant which have not satisfactorily been explained by the prosecution.
5. Resultantly this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge in this case. He is on bail, he stands discharged of his bail bond.