SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. Appellant, Hotak alias Sapak has put in the captioned appeal to set at naught the judgment dated 27.07.2023 ("impugned judgment") rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Killa Saifullah ("Trial Court"), whereby he was convicted and sentenced under section 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance of 1965 ("Ordinance of 1965") to suffer three (3) years R.I with a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) and in default thereof, to further undergo for a period of three (3) months S.I with the premium of section 382-B of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.") in a case vide FIR No.25 of 2022 (Ex.P/3-A) dated 27.07.2022 registered with Levies Station, Killa Saifullah.
2. Compendiously, the crime report ibid reveals that on 27.07.2022, while the appellant was being investigated in a case vide FIR bearing No.25 of 2014, he made disclosure and on his pointation levies officials got recovered Rifle .303 bore saving No.H-6079 from a room of house of the appellant, situated at Qandeel Batozai, Killa Saifullah, whereof he failed to produced any valid license.
The appellant was put on trial, where on commencement of the trial, the appellant entered the plea of denial, thus, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge, produced three (3) witnesses, and after close of the prosecution side, the appellant was examined under section 342 of Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations and professed innocence, whereafter the appellant neither deposed on oath no- produce any defence, henceforth on conclusion or the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the terms mentioned in the para supra.
3. Mr. Ashraf Dad Kakar, learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the mode and manner in which recovery has been affected is improbable and that no private witness was associated while making recovery of the crime weapon. He maintained further that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which has made the entire case doubtful, but the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration such aspect of the matter and has recorded the conviction for the reasons contrary to the evidence available on record. On the basis of above illegalities, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
On the other hand Mr. Abdul Latif Kakar, learned APG resisted the appeal and refuted the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. He urged that the prosecution has proved the case to the hilt and has also successfully established the recovery of the weapon in question through tangible evidence, substantiated by the FSL report regarding the crime weapon to be in working condition and that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, which needs not to be interfered with, and as such requested for dismissal of the appeal.
4. Heard. Record pondered upon. Rozi Khan Levies Constable ("LC") (PW-1) testified that on 27 07.2022, he along with other levies personnel under the supervision of Muhammad Essa Investigation Officer ("10") (PW-3) at 2:50 pm went to the house of the appellant, situated at Qadeel Batozai, where on the pointation of appellant Rifle .303 bore was recovered, whereof he sent an application (Ex.P/1-A) for registration of FIR. Abdul Qayum LC (PW-2) corroborated the testimony of complainant Rozi Khan (PW-1) and reiterated what he had deposed. He is recovery witness of the Rifle 303 bore, which was secured through recovery memo. (Ex.P/2-A). He produced parcel, sample of seal, and rifle along with its cover as Art.P/2-1 to Art.P/2-3. The testimony of both the aforementioned witnesses could not be shattered despite lengthy cross-examination. No license was produced by the appellant. Muhammad Essa Naib Risaldar (PW-3), being the stated that on 20.07.2022 appellant was arrested in two different murder cases. He further testified that on 26.07.2022, during investigation of the case vide FIR bearing No. 25 of 2014 appellant made disclosure and in consequence thereof on 27.07.2022, the appellant led them to his house at 2:50 pm, where he got recovered Rifle .303 bore, which was secured through recovery memo. (Ex. P/2- A). He also produced positive FSL report (Ex. P/3-E) of Rifle .303 bore, revealing the pistol to be in working condition. Despite lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination, the defence failed to extract any favorable reply, thus his deposition went unshaken.
As far as non-association of private witness is concerned, it is imperative to add here that the recovery has been made on the pointation of appellant in consequence of a disclosure, thus, compliance of section 103 of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory and its violation is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
5. In view of the evidence available on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond any glimpse of doubt and that the impugned judgment is based upon proper appraisal of evidence, suffering from no infirmity or misreading of evidence, thus we are reluctant to meddle with the impugned judgment.
6. In wake of the above, the appeal is dismissed, and conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 27.07 2023 is hereby maintained accordingly.