ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, J. By a short order dated 13-5-1982 we had dismissed the appeals and following are the reasons for the said order. This judgment would cover the two appeals Nos.
208/80 and 265/80 filed by the appellants.
2. Briefly the facts which lead to the instant appeals are that appellants Muhammad Siddik and Yousuf were arrested in connection with murder case (Sessions Case No. 46/1979) and each of the appellant after interrogation offered to make discovery of the crime weapons. Appellant Sidik led the A. S. I. Wahiduddin to the site of a rainy Nala at Kahu-jo-daro, Mirpurkas and from under the bricks took out a dagger which was secured and sealed by the A. S. I. In presence of Mashirs Gulsher and Kabir. Necessary Mashirnama was prepared. Appellant Yousuf led the same A. S. I. To a street behind Chiragh building and from under heap of mud took out and produced a Gararidar knife in presence of the Mashirs Ahmed and Chand. The two appellants however, had no licence for possessing the weapons. After the usual investigation the appellants were challaned separately under the Arms Ordinance and by the judgment of the trial Court the appellants were convicted under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to R. I. For one year. The appellants were also convicted by a separate judgment under section 30;, P. P. C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life. It was, however, directed that the additional sentence under Arms Ordinance shall run concurrently, with the main sentence in the murder case.
3. A charge in both the cases was framed under section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance to which the appellants pleaded not guilty. In their statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. They have denied to have produced or possessed the weapons.
4. We propose to take up the case against appellant Yousuf in the first instance. In this connection A. S. I. Wabiduddin Exh. 5 and Mashir Ahmed Exh. 8 were examined by the trial Court. Both of them deposed that the appellant voluntarily led them to a street behind Chiragh building and from under a heap of mud took .Out and produced a Gararidar knife. The A. S. I. Is a public servant. He is a respectable man and there are no reasons for him whatsoever to give false evidence against the appellant. Similarly no animus has been attributed against mashir Ahmed.
5. In his arguments the defence counsel has attacked the production of the weapon by the appellant on the ground that Mashir was not resident of the locality and the discovery was from a common place. The instant case is not the case of search but the case is covered by section 27 of the Evidence Act. The exclusive knowledge of the weapon being hidden wa with the appellant and he led the Investigating Officer to a particular place and produced the weapon. Exclusive knowledge was with the appellant only and the recovery proves that the weapon was in possession of the appellant. We find that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court cannot be interfered with as the same appears to be sound.
6. Similarly in the case of appellant Sidik A. S. I. Wabiduddin Exh. 5 and Mashir Qulsher Exh. 8 were examined. Appellant Sidik voluntarily led the investigating officer to a place by, the side of rainy Nala at Kahu jo-daro and from under bricks made discovery of dagger. A. S. I. Is a government servant and deems to be a respectable person and that his evidence is as good as evidence of any other witness. No animus has been attributed against the Mashir who also seems to have no reason to falsely depose against the appellant.
7. Same arguments were advanced by the defence counsel namely that the provisions of section 103, Cr. P. C. Were not complied with. This is a case under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the exclusive knowledge is attributable to the appellant only because he alone was in a position to lea the police to that place where the weapon was hidden. The weapon namely the dagger is his by the provisions of section 3(1)(b)(iii) of Arms Ordinance and required a licence under section 9 of the said Ordinance.
8. We had dismissed the main appeal namely appeals against the conviction and sentence of the appellants in murder case and have assigned our reasons for believing the recovery of weapons.
There is no force in the arguments of the learners counsel for the appellants and therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. The judgment of the trial Court is maintained.