Appellant Dil Murad had been convicted under section 13 (e) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to one year R. I. He has appealed against his conviction and sentence.
2. In this case the prosecution has examined only one witness who is the Investigating Officer S. H.
O. Amanullah. His evidence is that on 30-1-1970 he was S. H. O. Police Station Tangwani and he arrested appellant Dil Murad from his village. The latter then showed his willingness to produce the revolver used in the crime which was also under investigation, the subject---matter of a different case. It is alleged that the appellant took the S. H. O. And mashirs Chuttal and Khaliq Dad to his house and produced the revolver from underneath the cot on the eastern side of his house lying wrapped up in the cloth under a basket. The S. H. O. Secured the revolver in presence of the mashirs and prepared a mashirnama Exh. 4, according to him as attested by them. He had not sealed the revolver because no bullet was secured. The S. H. O. Then lodged F. I. R. On behalf of the State which is Exh. 5 regarding this recovery of revolver for which the appellant could not produce a licence. He then challaned the appellant in the Court who, ultimately took his trial and was convicted and sentenced as already mentioned above.
3. The S H. O. As already said, is the only prosecution witness who supports the recovery of the unlicensed revolver in question from the appellant. None of the, Mashirs in whose presence he said that the revolver had been produced by the appellant has been examined by the prosecution as the learned prosecutor in the case gave an application, Exh. 6, saying that Mashirs Chuttal and Khaliq Dad were given up as they had not supported the case in the lower Court. It is quite clear, there--fore, that none of the Mashirs supports the S. H. O. In his allegation that the appellant produced the unlicensed revolver. The question is that in view of this solitary evidence of the S. H. O.
The conviction of the appellant for the crime charged may be maintained or not? The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the Mashirs do not support the S. H. O. In his allegation of recovery of the unlicensed revolver from the appellant therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant and he be acquitted. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case Mohammad All and another v. The State (1968 P Cr. L J 596) where it was held in respect of stolen property an offence under section 412, P. P. C. That Mashirs of the recovery were the only witnesses in the case who did not support the prosecution story therefore, charge under section 412, P. P. C. Was held could not be established on the mere word of the Investigating Officer as such the conviction and sentence of the accused was set aside. I am in respectful agreement with this ruling and In my opinion when the Mashirs who are said to have witnessed the recovery of the alleged unlicensed revolver made all the instance of the appellant do not support the prosecution, obviously then the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant: The learned trial Court relied upon a cage of Qasim and others v. State (PLD 1967 Kar. 233) but in this case it has only been held that police officer is as a good witness as any other person and standard of judging his evidence is the same as for evidence of any other person. This dictum in my opinion is correct but when the police officer is not supported by the Mashirs of the recovery which he alleges to have made at the instance of an accused parson obviously, then his evidence is to be discarded as being subject to the benefit of doubt which has to go to the accused person. Counsel for the State also does not support the conviction.
4. For the foregoing reasons I find that the appellant has to be given the benefit of doubt and is to be acquitted. He is accordingly acquitted and his conviction and sentences are set aside. He is on bail and his bail bonds shall stand discharged.