FAZAL SUBHAN, J. Appellants (1). Saqib, (2). Kashif sons of Liaqat residents of Dharam Pani, Tehsil and District Haripur, have filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated: 25.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Judge MCTC, Haripur, in case FIR No. 75 dated: 26.02.2018 registered under section 15 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, Police Station, Saddar, District, Haripur, whereby, appellants were convicted and sentenced to two-year simple imprisonment and benefit of section 382-B P.P.C. was also extended to them.
2. Facts of the case, in brief are that on 16.04.2018 during investigation in case FIR No. 75, dated 26.02.2018 under section 302/324/34 P.P.C. of Police Station Saddar Haripur, appellants Saqib and Kashif led the police party to the Bandi Muwashian situated at Deh Dharain, Pani and from hay
(bosa) took out one repeater and one 30 bore pistol, local made, without number, and produced to the local police, for which they could not produce any, valid license/permit. Hence, in -the case referred to above, Section 15 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms, Act.
3. After completion of investigation, separate challan under section 15 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act was put in Court and after observing legal formalities of section 265-C, Cr.P.C, charge was framed against the accused. They did not pleaded their guilt and in order to prove its case against the appellants, prosecution produced its evidence, whereafter, statement of accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court after hearing arguments vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellants as mentioned above.
4. We have heard arguments of counsel for appellants/convicts, and AAG for State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and have thoroughly considered the record.
5. From the record it is clear that the appellants after being nominated in the main case remained fugitive from law and they along with other co-accused of the case, were arrested on 14.04.2018 and their card of arrest Ex.PW15/1 was duly issued. It is also in the evidence of PW-3 Asif Shahzed that on 16.04.2018, the appellants led the police party to the cattle-shed of his house and brought out a pistol 30 bore and .12 repeater from the husk and taken on the basis of recovery memo Ex.PW6/1 of main file and PW Asif Shahzad has verified the recovery of said weapon of offence on the pointation of appellants. The witnesses were put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing favourable was brought on record to discard his testimony. The recovery memo was exhibited without any objection from the appellants and thereby went unrebutted. Similarly, weapons of offence were produced before the Court and the evidence recorded in the main case confirmed that the same weapons were used in the commission of offence. Nothing is brought on record to discredit the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The appellants could not produced any license of the weapon nor any defense was produced to show that the weapons so recovered was foisted against them. Thus appellants have failed to point out any material or glaring contradictions or loopholes for disbelieving the recovery of crime weapon upon their pointation. In this respect reliance is placed titled as Nazir Shehzad and another v. The State 2009 SCMR 1440 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] held that; - "The mere plurality of information received before discovery shall not necessarily take any of these informations out of the section. In a suitable case it is possible to ascribe to more than one accused the information which leads to the discovery, so was held in the case Naresh Chandra Das and another v. Emperor AIR (29) 1942 Cal. 593.
6. For these reasons it is held that prosecution has convincingly proved the commission of offence by the accused in the main case and during the process they pointed out the weapon of offence used in the crime, hence the trial court was correct to award the impugned sentence. No good ground was advanced to interference in the sentence so awarded to the appellants, hence having no merits, this appeal stands dismissed and the sentenced so awarded to the appellants are maintained.