QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J.-- Appellant Abdul Aziz alias Teny was arrested in Crime No.56 of 1983 for having committed the murder of his brother--in-law (brother of wife) Muhammad Yaqub by means of knife. During the course of investigation the appellant was arrested from his house in presence of Mashirs Bashir Ahmad and Noor Muhammad and he volunteered to produce the knife from a dried drain (Nala) which has secured under a Mashirnama. Since the size of the blade of knife was prohibited, a separate case under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 was registered against him and he was sent up alongwith the main case of murder. At the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted for the offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence recorded by 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide judgment dated 29-4-1986, in this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution solely rests upon the evidence of Bashir Ahmad (P.W.1) and Shah Nawaz S.H.O. (P.W.2). According to the evidence of these witnesses the appellant, while in custody, led Shah Nawaz S.H.O. And Mashirs Bashir Ahmad and Noor Muhammad to a NALA near Makrani Para, Hyderabad and from there produced the knife which he possesed without anyi licence. The evidence Which has come on record in no way indicates that the knife was lying concealed and the appellant had produced it after removing it from there. Since the place from where the knife was secured was accessible to all, the, possession of the appellant cannot be said to be exclusive.
Bashir Ahmad (P.W.1) who has acted as Mashir, is admittedly the case-follow of complainant of the main case. His evidence is, therefore, to be examined with great care. When examined such statement in juxtaposition to the version of Sardar A.I Baboo (D.W.1), who is Municipal Councillor ofst the area and who has testified that he had in fact produced the appellant before S.H.O., S.I.T.E.
Police Station on 3-8--1983 at 8 p.m. This recovery becomes doubtful. At any rate the circumstances attending to this case make the case of prosecution doubtful. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. He is accordingly acquitted and be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
3. At the conclusion of the arguments we had, by a short order, dated 12-1--1989, allowed the appeal. These are the reasons for the said short order.