ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---Appellant was tried for an offence under section 23(A/(i)) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 vide judgment dated 8-8-2014 passed by learned VIIIth Assistant Sessions Judge Karachi East he was convicted and sentenced to undergo six years R.I. And to pay fine of Rs.40,000 in default thereof to undergo S.I. For one month. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him.
2. The relevant facts briefly stated in the FIR are that on 1-9-2013 a police party headed by S.I. Abdul Jabbar of CID/INV/CTU Karachi while returning from night patrolling received spy information about presence of an armed man with his motorcycle No.KGC-8706 maker Unique, near Deaf and Dumb Children School, Numaish Chorangi. On receiving such information police party reached at the pointed place at 0750 hours and arrested present appellant with unlicensed 30 bore pistol with magazine containing two live bullets was recovered from his possession. From his further personal search Rs.200, colored photocopy of CNIC No.45402-0327469-1, some papers and one black purse were also recovered. Police prepared suchmashirnama of arrest and recovery in presence of Head Constable Ameer Muhammad Niazi and P.C. Sohail Farhan. These accused and recovered properties were brought at Police Station CID Sindh, Karachi which followed the registration of case.
After completing invetigation challan of the case against accused was submitted in the Court of law.
3. At the trial prosecution examined three witnesses. In his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C.
Appellant/accused denied the allegations and pleaded his false implication. He however did not examine himself on oath in disproof of the allegations as required under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor led evidence in defence.
4. On conclusion of the trial learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him to the terms as mentioned above.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned APG for the state. Former has reiterated his arguments on the basis of grounds formulated in this appeal. Latter has supported the impugned judgment and further submitted that there was no ill will of prosecution witnesses of falsely implicating the appellant.
6. The prosecution in order to prove the apprehension of accused and recovery of alleged pistol, has examined complainant, SI. Abdul Jabbar and mashir P.C. Suhail Farhan as well as Inspector Sohail Ahmed Khan. No doubt evidence of official witnesses is admissible but it does not mean that they are reliable also and every case is to be seen in the light of the facts of its own. Of course, both the complainant and mashir PC Suhail Farman have given stereotype statements in the lineof FIR but while going through their evidence major contradictions have come to my notice, which has created doubt in the prosecution case. Before commenting on the evidence of these witnesses one thing is important to note is that throughout memo of arrest and recovery (Ex.3/A), FIR (Ex. 3/B) and statement of complainant S.I. Abdul Jabbar, roznamcha entry, under which police party left P.S. For patrolling has not been disclosed nor the same has been brought on record. This lapse on the part of prosecution has cut the very root of the case, thus, rendering the entire prosecution story shrouded by doubt, Reference may be made to the case of Abdul Sattar and others v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 51).
7. Now I advert to the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case. As per contents of memo accused was found present in suspicious condition and was apprehended on spot and on enquiry he disclosed his name as Moinuddin alias Wasim alias Arsalan son of Muhammad Irshad but complainant S.I. Abdul Jabbar has not supported these contentions of mashirnama. He has simply deposed that when they reached at the place of information they saw a boy in suspicious condition standing along with motorcycle, he was apprehended and from personal search the alleged pistol was recovered. He has not said if name and address was enquired from accused before his search was taken or on asking he disclosed his name to be present appellant. Mashir P.C. Suhail Farhan has deposed entirely different that while returning from night patrolling when reached at Namaish Chowrangi near Deaf and dumb school they stopped police mobile and Abdul Jabbar saw accused Moinuddin sitting on his motorcycle who on seeing police tried to run but was apprehended on spot. He has not said if any spy information about presence of accused in suspicious condition had been received by them. Furthermore, neither memo of arrest nor statement of complainant reflect that on seeing police accused had tried to escape from wardat. It indicates that either these witnesses were not present together at the time of alleged recovery or accused was not arrested as alleged by the prosecution. The learned trial Court seems to have escaped these points while writing the judgment. Settled law is that it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances for extending benefit of doubt but if a simple circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused then he will be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right, reliance is placed on the cases reported as 2008 SCM R 1221 and 1995 SCMR 1395.
8. In the circumstances discussed above, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the appellant/accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, therefore, while allowing this appeal I set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant/accused of charge after extending benefit of doubt to him.
9, The above are the reasons for short order passed in this appeal 19.03.2015, whereby the appeal was allowed and accused/appellant was acquitted.