1. ' MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---The appellant being aggrieved of conviction order made by Sessions Judge, Loralai on 19-6-2009, whereby he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs,5000, in default further imprisonment for a term of three months under section 13-E of Arms Ordinance, 1965.
2. ' It is his case that on 1-2-2009, while he was returning from Duki and waiting for bus on road side, when one Hidayatullah, who was an absconding accused in a murder case, accompanied by one Muhammad Din boarded in car, stopped their vehicle near him and offered him lift, as they were going to Killa Saifullah, offered him to drop him at Sanjavi. He (appellant) accepted the offer and boarded in the vehicle. At F.C. Check Post at Mundaytak, the car was intercepted by the F.C.
3. Personnel and on search a Kalashnikov was recovered from the trunk of the car concealed therein, he had no knowledge of the same. While along with said persons he was also taken into custody.
4. As he had no connection with the same, therefore, he agitated his arrest, which resulted in arguments and hard words with F.C. Personnel, who due to the same planted the Kalashnikov against him, whereby F.I.R. Was lodged against him, while one of the absconder Muhammad Din was set free by the F.C. After undue deal. Thereafter, on completion of investigation Challan was submitted, while after completion of trial, he was convicted of the charge.
5. ' The appellant preferred present appeal on grounds that he has committed no offence, while falsely involved in the case due to personal grudge of F.C. Personnel. Further, the absconding accused persons were in possession of Kalashnikov without his knowledge. Furthermore, as the F.C.
6. Personnel set free accused Muhammad Din after undue dealing that is why the whole staff of the check post was transferred soon after the occurrence. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence produced from both the sides. He has prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and thereby his acquittal.
7. ' Counsel for the parties are heard and record is perused.
8. ' As per record an F.I.R. No,7 of 2009 was registered in Police Station Duki District Loralai on the report of Naib Subedar Zafarullah Khan Post Command 77-Wing Mandaytak Duki. It has been reported that a car bearing Registration No,JAA-444, which was coming from Duki and proceeding towards Loralai, was intercepted and checked by F.C. Personnel wherein two persons namely Hidayatullah, the driver and Abdul Raziq (present appellant) who was sitting on front seat, were boarded, on search a Kalashnikov along with 28 live cartridges which was hanging on shoulder of Abdul Raziq, present appellant, was recovered, who failed to produce any licence or permit for the same. The appellant was booked in case for offence under section 13-E of Arms Ordinance, 1965. It is further apparent from record that the driver of the vehicle namely Hidayatullah was absconder of F.I.R. No, 17 of 2005 Police Station Ziarat under sections 302, 148 and 149, P . P . C . On completion of investigation, case was challaned, which was tried by Sessions Judge, Loralai. Charge was framed on 27-3-2009 for the offence under section 13-E of Arms Ordinance, 1965, to which the appellant/accused denied and claimed trial. Three witnesses appeared from side of the prosecution, while in defence the appellant/accused produced only one witness and also recorded his own statement on oath.
9. Though the appellant has urged that the trial court has misappreciated the evidence adduced from both the sides, but he had failed to point out which piece of evidence was not properly appreciated. The recovery of Kalashnikov from the spot at the time of incident is not denied by the appellant, rather he, in rebuttal, raised contention that the weapon belonged to said Hidayatullah and Din Muhammad, who were absconding accused persons having enmity. But the appellant during course of trial failed to establish presence of Din Muhammad in the vehicle in question. He further failed to produce said Abdul Wahid, who was suggested to inform S.H.O. About presence of Din Muhammad in vehicle, who was allegedly set free by complainant Zafarullah. Rather he produced one Abdullah Jan claiming to be heir of the victim, who asserted to inform the police about presence of Din Muhammad with Kalashnikov, in reply he was informed that accused persons are arrested when he reached the headquarter of F.C., he came to know that the original culprit Din Muhammad was released. Both these statements are contradictory to each other. The appellant has further failed to establish his plea that the alleged crime weapon is planted against him. Even during course of trial he never raised contention that due to dispute arose between him and staff of the check post at that time while matter was argued and hot words were exchanged, he was falsely involved in the case due to personal grudge. While recording his statement on oath he is silent to this extent. Now at stage of appeal he raised this contention, which seems to be an afterthought. The learned trial court has properly assessed the evidence placed on record and had come to the conclusion which based on material before on it. The appellant has failed to point out occasion of mis-appreciation of facts evidence or any other illegality in impugned judgment. Thus in view of the above discussion there is no ground interfere in the findings of the trial court.
10. ' The appellant has completely failed to make out any case on merits; as such appeal is hereby dismissed. The conviction order made by the trial Court is hereby upheld.