1. ' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---Applicant Rahoo alias Bhoro has filed instant Cr. Revision challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 13-4-2009 delivered by learned Sessions Judge Ghotki whereby conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant under section 13(d) A.O. To suffer two years' R.I. By Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Daharki vide his judgment dated 14-3-2009 was maintained with modification in period of sentence which reduced from two years to one year.
2. However, applicant was extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By both the lower courts.
3. ' Briefly narrated the facts of the case, are that on 14-9-2008 at 1630 hours complainant ASI Ashiqe Ali Kalwar alongwith his other staff members, while patrolling reached at Raharki bypass saw a person standing there, who on seeing police tried to escape but was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name as Rahu alias Bhoro son of Thangoo. From his personal search an unlicensed pistol of 30 bore loaded with 1(3) live bullets was recovered, the same was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.3/A witnessed by H.C. Abid Hussain and P.C. Waseem Ahmed followed by registration of case. After completion of investigation challan against the accused was submitted in court.
4. ' The applicant was charge sheeted who denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
5. To substantiate its assertion, prosecution examined the all three (3) P.Ws. Including I.O. In his statement applicant/accused denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. However, he neither examined, himself on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, nor led any evidence in his defence.
6. ' On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found the applicant guilty, convicted and sentenced him to the term as mentioned above which was reduced by appellate court vide impugned order.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant has been falsely involved by the complainant just to show his efficiency; that no effort was made by the police to associate independent witness in the recovery proceedings; that prosecution evidence is discrepant and suffers, from infirmities and that the investigation has not been conducted fairly.
8. ' Conversely, learned D.P.G. For the State supported the impugned order and submitted that applicant was arrested red-handed from spot in possession of one pistol and 3 live bullets; that prosecution witnesses have demonstrated complete unanimity on all important features of the case; that no mala fide has been shown on the part of police for false implication of applicant.
9. ' I have considered the arguments advanced at bar with reference to the material on file.
10. ' Prosecution in order to prove the apprehension of applicant on spot and recovery of pistol with bullets from his possession produced (PW-1) ASI Ashique Ali complainant and (P.W-2) H.C. Abid Hussain, mashir. Both these witnesses have fully supported the recovery. Their statements are consistent and reliable and there is no reason to discard their testimony. The learned counsel for the applicant has remained unable to show any background of bitterness or ill will between the applicant and the police so as to prompt the latter to falsely involve the applicant in the case. So far contention of learned counsel the applicant regarding non-association of public witness in the case, it is not denied that police officials are as good witnesses as any other citizens unless any mala fide is established against them, as such their deposition cannot be brushed aside simply on the bald allegation that they belong to the police department, even otherwise experience has shown that generally public persons of locality hesitate to become witness in such cases, thus mere fact that no independent and disinterested witness from public has been associated with proceedings by itself, cannot be considered sufficient to render the recovery of arm doubtful.
11. ' The conclusions drawn and reasons advanced by the appellate court show fair evaluation of evidence, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Resultantly the revision being merit less is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the appellate court are maintained by short order dated 5-5-2014, these are the reasons therefor.