1. ' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---By this judgment we propose to decide Criminal Appeal No, D-43 of 2007.
2. The appellant through this appeal assailed the judgment dated 22-1-2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, STA., Larkana convicting and sentencing the accused to suffer S.I. For five years for offence punishable under section 13(E) Pakistan Arms Ordinance.
3. ' The facts of the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Are that on 23-2-2001, Inspector S.H.O. Abdul Nabi Rind of Police Station Naudero on behalf of the State lodged his report stating therein thata he took out arrested accused Imdad alias, Rauf in Crime No,9 of 2001, offence punishable under sections 302, 109, 337-H(2,), 34, P.P.C. Of same Police Station. During interrogation the accused Imdad disclosed that the crime weapon viz. Kalashnikov used in Crime No,9 of 2001 is hidden By him. The S.H.O. Took out the accused and proceeded towards the pointed place i,e, village Khan Wah along with HC Nizamuddin Korai, PC Mumtaz Ali and PC Allah Bux. When they reached there, the Kalashnikov along with magazine was found in the heap of 'Pala]' on the pointation of accused.
4. Complainant also picked the private mashirs namely Muhammad Azam and Abdul Basit while going towards the pointed place. Accused disclosed that it is the same Kalashnikov which was used in Crime No,9 of 2001 and from this weapon he had fired upon deceased Ali Gul and had committed his Qatl-e-Amd and the same Kalashnikov was unlicensed. Complainant secured Kalashnikov and unloaded it. He sealed the secured Kalashnikov along with magazine on the spot.
5. Such mashirnama of recovery was prepared and he obtained the signature of private mashirs on it. He then brought the accused along with secured property at Police Station as the accused had committed the offence punishable under section 13-E, Pakistan Arms Ordinance, he lodged report on behalf of State against accused/ appellant.
6. ' After usual investigation the case was challaned and charge was framed against appellant/accused Imdad Ali alias Abdul Rauf on 8th November, 2001.
7. ' During trial prosecution examined P.W.1 Muhammad Azam, mashir at Exh.5, who produced mashirnama of arrest, and recovery at Exh.5-A, one sealed parcel of Kalashnikov with magazine, P.
8. W.2 Inspector Abdul Nabi Rind, complainant at Exh.10, who produced F.I.R. At Exh.10-A, attested copies of roznamcha entries at Exhs.10-B and 10-C after completing the evidence produced by the prosecution the statement of appellant was recorded at Exh.12 and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties the impugned judgment was passed.
9. ' P.W.1 Muhammad Azam has stated in his evidence that complainant of main case is his relative.
10. Deceased Ali Gul was also his relative. On 13-2-2001, he along with Abdul Basit were present at northern side of village Khan Wah, when police vehicle came in which S.H.O. Abdul Nabi Rind and other staff were present. The S.H.O disclosed that the accused has showed his willingness to produce the K.K with which he killed Ali Gul and S.H.O asked them to act as mashir. The S.H.O then boarded them in mobile. P.W. Muhammad Azam further deposed that accused Imdad was also present in the police mobile and when reached at the abandoned land of Hafiz Nabi Bux Jarwar, the accused got stopped police vehicle and accused led them towards the Palal lying on the land.
11. He further deposed that the accused produced one K.K with folding, butt lying in plastic shopper and disclosed that the said K.K is same with which he committed Qatl-e-Amd of Ali Gul. P.W.2 Abdul Nabi has deposed that on 23-2-2001 he was working as S.H.O at Police Station Naudero. On the same date, the arrested accused Imdad Ali in Crime No,9 of 2001 under section 302, P.P.C. Was lying in police lock up. He took out the accused from police lock up for the purpose of interrogation about crime weapons used in the commission of offence. The accused showed his willingness to produce the crime weapon, therefore, he along with his subordinate staff namely HC-Nizamuddin, PC Mumtaz Ali, driver Allah Bux on official mobile vide roznamcha Entry No,15 along with accused under custody left Police Station for recovery of crime weapon. He picked mashir Muhammad Azam and Abdul Batin from way and then went towards the place of recovery viz abandoned land of Hafiz Nabi Bux Jarwar.
12. ' The accused then asked them to stop the vehicle, on which they stopped their vehicle. The accused then in presence of mashirs led them towards the heap of Palal and while removing Palal accused took out Kalashnikov and handed over to him. He enquired about license of secured Kalashnikov from the accused, on which the accused disclosed that the said weapon is unlicensed.
13. Then he prepared such mashirnama on the spot in presence of mashirs and obtained their signatures on it.
14. ' Mr. Aftab Ahmed Gorar learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the alleged place of recovery was not in exclusive possession of the appellant. He further contends that complainant himself investigated the case. He further contends that the witnesses are interested witnesses and the evidence adduced by the witnesses do not inspire confidence. He further contends that the weapon has been foisted by the police at the instance of complainant of main murder case and there is contradiction in the evidence of both the witnesses hence the case of appellant is doubtful, therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant. He, therefore, prays that the appellant may be acquitted.
15. ' On the other hand Mr. Naimtullah Bhurgari, learned State Counsel has argued that the prosecution had produced trustworthy evidence and one unlicensed Kalashnikov was recovered along with two live bullets at the pointation of the accused appellant. He further contends that the accused had no enmity with the complainant and the complainant was S.H.O from which it could he presumed that the accused was falsely implicated in this case. He, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment does not require any interference and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court may be maintained.
16. ' We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties. P.W. 1 Muhammad Azam has deposed that on 13-2-2001 he along with Abdul Batin were present at northern side of the village Khan Wali where S.H.O. Abdul Nabi along with his subordinate staff had come who disclosed that the accused had showed his willingness to produce the K.K with which he killed Ali Gul and asked him to act as mashir and when reached at the spot the accused produced Kalashnikov with folding butt lying in the plastic shopper. The P.W.2 S.H.O Abdul Nabi has deposed that he took out the accused/ appellant from police lock up for the purpose of interrogation about crime weapons used in Crime No,9 of 2001. He has further deposed that accused had volunteered to give Kalashnikov and when he along with his subordinate staff were going to spot and in the way P.W.1 Abdul Nabi picked P.W.2 Muhammad Azam and when reached at the pointed place, the accused then in presence of mashirs from the heap of Palal took out the Kalashnikov. If we would like to compare the deposition of P.W-1 Muhammad Azam with the deposition of P.W.2 S.H.O Abdul Nabi Rind then we would find full resemblance in the depositions of both the witnesses. There is no any material contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The complainant who is police official has no enmity with the accused appellant. The police witnesses are good witnesses as other. In this case P.W Muhammad Azam has no enmity with appellant. His evidence is also trustworthy and confidence inspiring and no material discrepancies found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses by us. We also minutely appreciated and evaluated the prosecution evidence with care and caution and are of the considered view that prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The appeal having been found destitute of force is dismissed and the impugned judgment is maintained.