MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The appellant was booked under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Vide FIR No, 16/13 of Police Station Gonar Farm Chilas and during investigation of the case an unlicensed 30 bore pistol was recovered from his possession and FIR 19/13 was lodged under Section-13 A.O.
2. After Facing trial in the main offence he was convicted by the trial Court and vide judgment dated 30-4-15, he was found guilty for the murder of one Muhammad Azam and Awarded life imprisonment and a tine of Rs, 300,000/- (Three lac) under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.. The appellant, was also convicted under section 13 A.O. And awarded I year's RI. The appellant filed an appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. Before this Court, which was disposed of on 13.10.2015 by a Division Bench of this Court on the basis of compromise and the convict/appellant was acquitted from the charge of murder under section 345(2), Cr.P.C., but in the same judgment, his case up to the extent of 13 A.O. Was kept pending to be decided on its own merit. The appellant was allowed bail in the case under section 13 A.O. In the sum of Rs,40,000/- (forty thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of Registrar Chief Court.##TE#
3. Today the case of conviction of the convict/appellant under section 13 A.O. Came before us for hearing. The learned counsel for the convict/appellant submitted at bar that the recovery of .30 bore pistol has been planted on the appellant and there are material contradiction in the statements of attesting witnesses of the so-called recovery. He further submitted that no independent witness of the recovery has been cited and one nephew and one maternal uncle of the deceased have been cited as marginal witnesses of the recovery, who are residing about 25 km from the place of recovery and there are material contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses and the appellant/convict deserves acquittal in the instant case.
4. The learned Dy. A.G. In reply submitted that the recovery of .30 bore pistol has been effected on the plantation of the appellant/convict and it does have any serious defect. The conviction recorded is based on sound reasoning and does not necessitate any indulgence from this Court.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
As per recovery memo Exh PW-6/A one 30 bore pistol bearing No, 8040 was recovered on the plantation of the appellant/convict but very strangely we observed that neither in the statement of two marginal witnesses namely Amir Khan (PW-6) and Ishfaq Alam (PW-7) recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The number of pistol is mentioned. None of the witness during the their examination in Court stated that the pistol produced in court was bearing No,8040 as reflected in recovery memo.
Rather when these PWs were confronted they confirmed that the pistol produced in the Court is not bearing any number on its body.
6. This is a material contradiction, which cannot be lightly ignored as the appellant/convict being a favorite child of law cannot be denied any benefit arising in prosecution evidence. The I.O. Opted to pick two close relatives of deceased from a far flung area and they also failed to give any earthly reason of their presence at the place of recovery at the relevant time, which also created doubts in our mind regarding of recovery.##TE#
7. In view of the above contradictions, we set aside the conviction of the appellant/convict recorded under section 13 A.O. And acquit him from the charge. He was allowed bail in the instant case by this Court on 13.10.2015. His bail bonds are discharged and his sureties are also relieved from their liabilities.##TE#