1. SHAH ZAMAN BABAR. J.---Shahzad Gul, aged 30-35 years, son of Badshah Gul, resident of village Hoti, Police Station Lachi, District Kohat, was tried under section 302/309, P. P. C. And section 13, Arms Ordinance, on the allegations that he on the night between 8/9th April 1971, caused the death of his wife Mst. Bibi Sofia by firing at her and also attempted to commit suicide by firing and injuring himself with his unlicensed revolver, in the Kotha of his house in village Hoti. The trial was held by S. Shaukat A.I Shah Gilani, Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat, who held the accused guilty on all the three counts. He was convicted under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to transportation for life.
2. He was also convicted under section 309, P. P. C. And sentenced to three months' S. I. He was further convicted under section 13, Arms Ordinance and sentenced to three months' R. I. All the three sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Shahzad Gul convict has appealed challenging his convictions and sentences for all the three offences with which he was charged.
2. Nadir Shah P. W. Is the father of Mst. Bibi Sofia (deceased). He is resident of village Sanda Fateh Khan. Shahzad Gul appellant is the son of a real sister of Nadir Shah. Shahzad Gul is resident of village Hoti. The distance between Sanda Fateh Khan and Hoti is about one mile. On 8-4-71 Mst. Bibi Sofia was married to Shahzad Gul appellant. The bride was brought In Doll to the house of the bridegroom at about digar time same day. It Is alleged that an elder sister of Mst. Bibi Sofia, namely, P. W. Mst. Bibi Zakia, wife of Kamal Badshah, according to the custom prevalent in the Ilaqa, accompanied Bibi Sofia to the house of the latter's husband, and that Bibi Zakia was staying for the night following the day of marriage in the house of the appellant. It is further alleged that Bibi Zakia P. W. Was sleeping In a Kotha adjacent to the Kotha of the newly married couple. Some other guests (ladies) were also asleep in the same Kotha with Bibi Zaki3. In the courtyard of the house some female guests and Mst. Lal Jan, mother of the appellant, were asleep. At about dawn on 9-4- 71 Bibi Zakia heard two shots one after the other followed by an outcry raised by Mst. Lai Jan. Mst.
4. Bibi Zakia came to the Kotha of the appellant and found her sister lying dead on the ground beside a solitary charpai on which the appellant was lying injured. It is alleged that Badshah Gul, father of the appellant, was also present. On the protest of Mst. Lal Jan, the appellant stated that he had killed his wife first and then shot himself. Bibi Zakia saw the appellant holding a tamancha in his hand. This tamancha was allegedly taken away by Gul Khanan from the appellant. Gul Khanan is the sister's son of Badshah Gul, father of the appellant The wife of Gul Khanan is the daughter of a brother of Badshah Gul. It is alleged that P. W. Nadir Shah was informed by Rais Khan P. W.
5. (abandoned at the trial). People from the village, including Gul Khanan, took the dead body of Mst.
6. Bibi Sofia and Shahzad Gul appellant in injured condition to Police Station Lachi on 9-4-71. The distance between Hoti and P. S. Lachi is 5/6 miles. At the-- Police Station Shabzad Gul himself lodged the F. I. R.Exh. P. A. At 7-30 a.m. This report was scribed by P. W. Muhammad Fayaz A. S. I. The F. I. R. Is translated in English as under:- "Last night my marriage was performed with Bibi Sofia, daughter of Nadir Shah, resident of Sanda Fateh Khan. Last night I and my wife were present in the Kotha of the house. I expressed my desire for sexual intercourse but my deceased wife told me that her Nikah has been performed without her consent, and therefore I should not go near her. Therefore I got enraged on this reply. Therefore I with my unlicensed revolver fired the first shot at Bibi Sofia deceased and killed her, and after this I fired one shot at myself which has Injured me in the front below the heart. At the time of the occurrence nobody except myself and my wife were present. Later on numerous men and women had come there. Nobody else than myself has a hand in the occurrence."
7. A. S. I. Muhammad Fayaz P. W. After recording the report Exh. P. A. Read it over and explained it to Shahzad Gul who after admitting it correct thumb-impressed it. The appellant, after his report was recorded, was put under arrest by placing a guard on him in the hospital. The A. S. I. p-epared the injury sheet of the appellant. He also prepared the injury sheet and inquest report of Bibi Sofia deceased. The A. S. I. Then went to village Hoti along with Gul Khanan where he reached at 9-30 a.m. The same day viz. 9-4-71. The A. S. I. Went straight to the house of the appellant. He sent Gul Khan in to call out Badshah Gul, father of the appellant, and to arrange for Pardah. Gul Khanan and Badshah Gul came out. Gul Khanan produced the .32 bore revolver Exh. P. 1 in the presence of P. W.
8. Qazi Zamir Gnl and Jemadar Muhammad, who had also arrived there by the time. The revolver contained two empties Exh. P. 2 in the chamber. The revolver and the two empties gave smell of fresh discharge of gun powder. The revolver and the two empties were taken into possession by the A. S. I. Vide memo. Exh. P. 1 in the presence of P. W. Muhammad and Qazi Zamir Gut (not examined). Muhammad P. W. Also found the revolver and the two empties giving smell of gun-- powder. Thereafter the A. S. 1. Inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Exh. P. F. At the instance of Badshah Gul. Point 1 indicates the place in the Kotha where one charpai was lying. The A. S. I.
9. Toox into possession charpai Exh. P. 6, Dari Exh. P. 7, Tulaee Exh. P. 8, bed-sheet Exh. P. 9 and a pillow P. 10, vide memo. Exh. P. K., in the presence of P. W. Muhammad and Zamir Gul. It is pointedly noted in Exh. P. K. That the bed was not besmeared with blood. Point 2 indicates the place where the revolver Exh. P. 1 was found lying in the Kotha after the occurrence. The distance between points 1 and 2 is two feet. P. W. F. C. Bazid Khan, who had escorted the dead body of Bibi Sofia from the Police Station to the mortuary at Lachi had brought back a spent bullet, 32 bore, Exh. P. 3, extracted from the dead body of the deceased, a shirt Exh. P. 4, and a banyan Exh. P. 5, and produced them before Muhammad Fayaz A. S. I., who took them into possession vide memo. Exh. P. J. The shirt and banyan had the holes corresponding to the injuries. The holes had gun-powder marks around them, as mentioned in the memo. Exh. P. J. And deposed to by P. W. F. C. Bazid Khan, P. W. Hikmat Shah L. H. C., the marginal witness of the memo., and A. S. I. Muhammad Fayaz. Muhammad Fayaz A. S. I. Then recorded statements of some of the P. Ws. And handed over the investigation of the case to P. W. Mustehsinullah Khan, S. H. O. Of the Police Station at 3-15 p.m. On 9-4-71.
10. P. W. Mustehsinullah Khan S. I. Investigated the case on '9-4-71, 15-4-71 and 19-4-71. He recorded the statement of Bibi Zakia on 15-4-71 and added points B and 6 to the site plan Exh. P. F. On the same day. Point B denotes the place where Bibi Zakia was allegedly sleeping in the Kotha adjacent to the Kotha where the married couple was asleep on the night of occurrence. Point 6 indicates the place on a wooden pillar in the Kotha where lantern Exh. P. 13 was hanging. This lantern r was taken into possession by the S. I. Vide memo. Exh. P. M. On 19-4-71 in the presence of P. W. Ahmad A.I H. C. On 9-4-71 P. W. Twahir Din F. C. Produced the shirt Exh. P. 11, banyan Exh. P. 12, handed over to him by the doctor as belonging to Shahzad Gul appellant, before the S. I., who took them into possession vide memo. Exh. P. L. It may be noted that P. W. Twahir Din F. C. Had escorted the injured appellant from the Police Station to the hospital. The shirt and the banyan were taken into possession in the presence of P. W. Muhammad. The banyan only was blood-stained according to the statement of P. W. Muhammad. It is noted in Exh. P. L. That the shirt had no holes nor it was stained with blood. It is also noted therein that the banyan had the blood-stained hole corresponding to the injury, and that the hole in the banyan had blackening.
11. The S. I. After examining some witnesses completed the investigation and challaned the accused to Court.
3. P. W. Lady Doctor Taj Sanobar Khattak performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sofia Begum, aged about 18 years, on 9-4-71 at 8-30 a.m. She found the following on external examination:- External Exuminatian.
(1) Entrance wound size --" x --" infinity deep at the sternum notch slightly on the right side.
(2) No exit wound present.
12. Internal Examination.
(1) Head and neck N. A. D.
(2) Chest. No ribs fracture. Heart injured. Lungs Injured.
(3) Abdomen. Liver injured. Intestine injured (both small and large).
(4) Genito urinary tract.
(a) External Examination.-Hymen not intact. Injury to the hymen with fresh bleeding with fresh injury present showing recent sexual act.
(b) Vagina healthy showing that sexual intercourse is performed.
(c) Swabs taken and sent for examination to Lahore.
(5) Bullet removed from the chest during examination and banded over to the F. C.
13. Weapon used firearm. Duration between death and P. M. Four to six hours. Time between death and injury immediate.
14. The lady doctor bad also examined the injuries of Shahzad Gul appellant (aged about 25 years) on 9-4-71 at 8 a.m. And found the following injury on external examination.
15. Entrance wound size --" x --" in the middle of the sternum fossa. Charring present.
16. There was no exit wound present. General condition of the patient was not good. Pulse was not perceptible. However, the patient was able to talk and was in full senses. The injury was opined to be caused by firearm. Its nature was grievous within a duration of 4 to 6 hours.
4. At the commencement of the trial, the appellant had pleaded not guilty. At the trial he admitted that Sofia was his wife and also the daughter of his maternal uncle, and that the Doli of Sofia Begum was brought to his house at digar time preceding the night of occurrence, and that at the time of occurrence she was present with him in one and the same room where the occurrence took place. He denied the custom prevailing in the ilaqa that a lady accompanied the Doll of the bride. He also denied that Mst. Bibi Zakia had accompanied the Doli of her deceased sister. He denied having produced the .32 bore revolver Exh. P. 1 containing two empties Exh. P. 2 !n the chamber, to Gul Khanan, who allegedly produced the same to police. He denied even any relation with Gut Khanan. He denied having lodged the report Exh. P. A. Or having thumb-- impressed it, and added th-it big father Badshah Gul had lodged the F. I. R. As regards the thumb-impression on F. I.
17. R. He; stated that he was examined in the hospital and numerous thumb-impressions of him were taken by the Investigating Officer there. He totally denied having committed the murder of his wife Mst. Sofia Begum with the revolver Exh. P. 1 in the Kotha of the house, where they were present on the night. He also denied that he fired at himself with the revolver Exh. P. 1 and caused injury on himself in order to commit suicide. In explana--petition of his injury he stated:- "On the fateful night I and my deceased wife were sleeping in our Kotha and the door of the Kotha was not closed as it was the month of April. Two persons entered my Kotha one fired at Mst. Bibl Sofia and the second one whom I suspected to be Hamid son of Hamesh Gul, came near to me and fired at me. Hamid was desirous to take the band of Mst. Bibi Sofia in marriage but as her marriage took place with me, therefore, he was annoyed and injured me."
18. He explained the charge against him as follows:- "I am innocent. As I have already stated, Hamid son of Hamesh Gut who is aunt's son of Mst. Bibi Sofia deceased was desirous to take the hand of Mst. Bibi Sofia in marriage. As there was mutual liking between myself and Mst. Bibi Sofia deceased, therefore at her instance the marriage of Mst.
19. Bibi Sofia took place with me, although Nadir Shah P. W. Father of Mst. Bibi Sofia tried to give her in marriage to his sister's son Hamid son of Hamesh Gut. On that account the said Hamid was very much annoyed and he did not participate in my marriage ceremony. On the said night I and my wife Mst. Sofia were sleeping inside the Kotha and the door was open. Guests were also sleeping in the compound of our house. After performing marital obligations while I and Mst. Bibi Sofia were sleeping, I was suddenly awakened with the report of fire and saw two persons armed with revolvers standing inside the Kotha near the door. The first shot had hit Mst. Bibi Sofia, then a person who was suspected by me to be the said Hamid son of Hamesh Gul, came forward and fired at me with his revolver from a close distance. I was hit and became unconscious. After a while when I regained my senses, I found my parents and other relatives present in my room and Mst.
20. Bibi Sofia was lying murdered. I told my father and to my relatives about the occurrence and expressed my suspicions against Hamid son of Hamesh Gut to be one of the culprits who had committed the murder of Mst. Bibi Sofia and also firing effectively at me. In the police station my fattier lodged a report against Hamid son of Hamesh Gut and though the father of Mst. Bibi Sofia was present in the police station, he did not report against me. Then I was sent to the hospital and there the I. O. Examined me and took my thumb-- impressions. I had given the same statement to the I. O. In the hospital which I have given just now. I am innocent and falsely charged."
21. He produced no evidence in defence.
5. The prosecution has relied on the F. I. R. Exh. P. A. Lodged by the appellant himself, the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before his mother Mst. Lai Jan in the presence of P. W.
22. Bibi Zakia, and the circumstantial evidence on record. The learned trial Judge had held the F. I. R.
23. Exh. P. A. As inadmissible in evidence being a confessional statement of the appellant. He, however, relied on the testimony of P. W. Bibi Zakia relating to the extra judicial confession of the appellant and also discussed the circumstantial evidence on file which led him to hold the appellant guilty of the offences with which he was charged.
24. As regards the testimony of Bibi Zakia, we are of the view that her presence in the house of the appellant in a Kotha adjacent to the Kotha of the appellant has not been. Established. Mst. Zakia was examined by S. I. Mustehsinallah P. W. On 15-4-71, six days after the occurrence, which took place on the night between 8/9-4-71, P. W. Nadir Shah, father of Mst. Bibi Zakia P. W. And Sofia deceased has omitted to state in his, statement before the committing Magistrate that Bibi Zakia had gone to the house of the appellant in the Doli of Bibi Sofia deceased. Mst. Zakia has deposed that she saw a tamancha in the hand of the appellant which was taken away by Gul Khanan from the accused. Gul Khanan had accompanied the dead body and the injured appellant to the Police Station. Gul Khanan had returned to the village of the occurrence along with A. S. I. Muhammad Fayaz. Gul Khanan had not produced the revolver Exh. P. 1 containing the two empties Exh. P. 2 either at the Police Station or on the way from the Police Station to the village. According to the evidence of Mohammad Fayaz A. S. I. Gul Khanan produced the revolver at the village to the A. S. I. After Gul Khanan had gone into the house of the appellant and had come out with Badshah Gul, father of the appellant. There is no evidence on record as to how Gul Khanan came into possession of the revolver containing the two empties. Muhammad Fayaz A. S. I. Has prepared the site plan Exh. P. F.
25. At the instance of Badshah Gul. Point 2 in the site plan indicates the place where the revolver Exh. P.
26. 1 was found lying in the Kotha after the occurrence. This fact of the recovery of the revolver contradicts the testimony of Bibi Zakia that the revolver was handed over to Gut Khanan by the appellant in her presence. P. W. Mst. Bibi Zakia has also stated that she went into the bridal chamber and found that the appellant in injured condition was lying on a solitary charpai' and Bibl Sofia was lying dead on the ground beside the charpai. As earlier stated, it is recorded in the memo. Exh. P. K. That the bed including the charpai, Dari, Tulaee, a bed-sheet and a pillow had no blood stains on it. Bibi Zakia had also stated that she did not inquire from Shahzad Gul appellant about the occurrence. These facts taken cumulatively lead us to hold the view that the presence of Mst. Bibi Zakia on the night of occurrence has not been establish--ed. Her evidence is, therefore, unworthy of any credit. The learned trial Judge has, in our opinion, erred in relying on her testimony with regard to the extra judicial confession, allegedly made by the appellant before his mother Mst.
27. Lal Jan.
8. The next question for consideration in this case is whether the first information report Exh. P. A.
28. Lodged by the appellant is to be excluded totally from consideration as inadmissible in evidence or only that portion which relates to the confessional statement of the appellant is to be excluded. S. Masoorn Shah, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of section 25 of the Evidence Act and the undermentioned authorities, the whole of the F. I. R. Is to be treated as inadmissible in evidence. Section 25 of the Evidence Act reads: "No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence."
29. The learned counsel cited:
(1) Haev. Emperor AIR 1942 Lab. 37
(2) Lal Khan and others v. Emperor AIR 1948 Lab. 43.
(3) The .State v. Ghandal PLD 1960 Pesh. 137.
30. "Confessional statement of an accused incorporated in the first information report cannot be used against him as it amounts to a confession to a police officer which section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not allow to be proved. However, there is no legal bar to the use of such a confession in favour of --the accused."
31. "The prohibition contained in section 25 can be treated as applying only to confessions which are to be proved as against the accused, that is, in support of the prosecution case, and cannot apply to statements on which the accused himself wishes to rely in connection either with his conviction or his sentence."
32. "When an accused person himself makes a statement which is taken down as a first information report, the statement is inadmissible against the accused as it amounts to a confession to a police officer. But there is no bar to using such a confes--sion in favour of the accused."
33. Sardar Fakhre Alam, Advocate-General, argued that where a confessional part of statement in a report lodged by an accused person is severable, the non-confessional part of the statement is admissible in evidence as an admission of the maker.
34. "On the other hand, on behalf of the accused, it is contended that as part of the first information is inadmissible, the whole is inadmissible, and that the preliminary narrative should be regarded as merely leading up to the confession and not sever able from it.
35. Though, no doubt, when portions of the statement are admitted, the persons affected thereby may demand that the statement should be admitted and considered in its entirety, yet the principle that portions of a statement or confession may be admitted and others excluded is recognised in the Evidence Act itself (e.g. Section 27) and also in the cases cited in support of the appeal. We are, therefore, of opinion that, as contended by the Crown, the first information in so far as it speaks of events prior to the night of occurrence, i.e. Down to the words 'I have not been successful' if and when proved, is admissible in evidence."
36. "The whole of the first information report by an accused need not be excluded from admission, merely the confessional part is excluded."
37. "Those portions of the F. I. R. Which do not relate to the commission of the crime itself, as for instance which are intro--ductory or narrate the motive and the opportunity for the crime -------- -..Would be relevant evidence in the case."
38. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondent relied on Lachhuman Munda v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1064 Pat. 210). In this case also the first information report lodged by the appellant was excluded from consideration by the trial Judge. The learned Judges, after giving the English rendering of the first information report in the judgment and after discussion of several authorities on the point, held: "If the statement be treated as a statement made by an accused to a police officer during the course of an investigation it could not be used as evidence in view of the provisions of section 162, Cr. P. C. But there was no bar to the use of such a statement made by the accused to a police officer before the investigation of the case had commenced as an admission under section 17 of the Evidence Act unless it was hit by tile provisions of sections 24 and 25 of that Act.
39. There was no bar to splitting up of the first information report where the confessional part was separable from the rest of the statements which were otherwise admissible and to exclude from it any of the inadmissible parts and admitting the rest of it. The statement read as a whole did not appear to have been made as a result of any inducement, promise or threat of any person in authority or otherwise, as was clear from the fact that the accused appeared at the Thana of his own accord and made his statement voluntarily.
40. The statement of the accused in the instant case examined in the light of the provisions of sections 17, 25, 27 of the Evidence Act divided itself into three parts. First was introductory to the relevant fact, referring to the motive, opportunity and descrip--petition leading to the crime. Second part related to the commis--sion of the actual crime and the third related to the after events as to his conduct and his confessional statement leading to the discovery of certain facts. Thus it was only the second part dealing with the actual commission of the crime that became inadmissible in evidence under section 25 and the whole first information report need not be excluded from con-- sideration."
41. We consequently hold that if in a first information report lodged by an accused his confessional statement in the same report, if separable from the other portion of the report, can only be held inadmissible in evidence in view of section 25 of the Evidence Act ; but the other severable portions of the report A relating to the motive, opportunity, conduct and description leading to the crime would be admissible in evidence under sections 8, 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act if properly proved.
42. Such an admission in the report would be substantive evidence against the maker as held in Sideman Shah v. Ayub and others (PLD 1971 SC 751).
43. Let us now scan the F. I. R. Exh. P. A. In the present case which has been lodged by the appellant at the police station. The information lodged by the appellant at the police station being the only Information leading to the commission of the crime was necessarily to be recorded under section 154, Cr. P. C., and when reduced Into writing it was to be read over to the in--formant and signed or thumb-impressed by him. The A. S. I. Muhammad Fayaz has recorded the report Exh. P. A. The A. S. I.
44. Has testified that he read over and explained the report to Shahzad Gul, who after admitting it correct, thumb-impressed it. Thus the F.I.R. Exh. P. A. Stands proved according to law. In view of the above observations, we are of the view that only the portion "therefore I with unlicensed revolver fired the first shot at Bibi Sofia deceased and killed her, and after this I fired one shot at myself which has injured me in the front below the heart", is to be excluded as inadmissible, in view of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The first portion of the F. I. R. Relating to the motive and opportunity leading to the crime and the last portion that nobody a else except the appellant and his deceased wife were present at the time of the occurrence and that nobody else than himself has a hand in the occurrence, is to be considered as admissible and substantive evidence against the appellant.
7. The learned trial Judge has considered the circumstantial evidence in the case to be sufficient proof for holding the appel--lant guilty under sections 302 and 309, P. P. C. When a charge of murder is based purely on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must conclusively link the accused with the perpetration of the crime and point conclusively to his guilt. Such evidence must practically exclude the possibility of the murder having been com--mitted by other person or persons. At the trial the appellant stated that the F. I. R. Exh. P. A. Was lodged by his father Badshah Gul and not by him. He has also charged two persons one of whom he suspected to be Hamid son of Hamesh Gul to have fired at him and his wife Bibi Sofia deceased while they were asleep in their Kotha on the first night of their marriage. The statement of the appellant at the trial appears to be false and made-up story. The same does not fit in the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. The report Exh, P. A. Has been proved to have been lodged by the police. From the record it patently appears that Badsbah Gul, father of the appellant, had even not gone to the police station with the appellant but had met A. S. 1. Muhammad Fayaz when the latter had come for investigation at the house of the appellant. The medical evidence shows that the entrance wound in the middle at sternum fossa on the body of the appellant had charring around it. This wound is --" x --" in dimension. The lady doctor has also deposed that the entrance wound on the body of the deceased had no charring marks but was possible from a near distance. The shirt and banyan of the deceased as stated earlier, had holes on them corresponding to the injuries, and the holes had gun powder marks around them. The entrance wound on the body of the deceased was also of the dimension --" x --". Both the wounds could be caused by shots fired from one and the same revolver. Thus it has been established that the wounds on the person of the appellant and the body of the deceased were caused by fire shots, fired from the same pistol or revolver from close range. It has also been established from the statement of the appellant at the trial and his admissions in the F. I. R. That the crime of murder was committed in the bridal chamber on the night of occurrence where the appellant and the deceased were the only persons present. The burden, therefore, lay heavily on the appellant to prove that the crime was committed by any other person, than himself. From the above discussion we arrive at the conclusion that the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for killing his wife Bibi Sofia and also his attempting to commit suicide.
45. The learned counsel, in the alternative, argued that the con--viction of the appellant, if any, would fall under section 304 (Part I), P. P. C. As the appellant committed the crime while deprived of power of self-control by grave and sudden provoca--petition, and the case of the appellant is covered by Exception 1 to section 300, P. P. C. The appellant has stated in his report that he had expressed his desire for sexual intercourse but the deceased told him that her Nikah had been performed without her consent, therefore, he should not go near her and on this he got enraged. The medical evidence shows that hymen of the deceased eras not intact and that the hymen was injured with fresh bleeding which showed recent sexual intercourse having been performed with her. It can be reasonably inferred from the medical evidence and the statement of the appellant in the F. I. R., referred to above, that the appellant had expressed his desire for sexual intercourse for the second time, which was refused by the bride. Such refusal would naturally cause grave and sudden provocation in the mind of any youngman on the first night of his marriage to the extent of his being deprived of the power of self-control. The offence committed by the appellant would, therefore, fall under section 304 (Part 1), P. P. C.
46. The appellant has also been convicted under section 13 of the Arms ordinance for being found in possession of unlicensed .32 bore revolver and sentenced to three months' R. I. The testimony of Bibi Zakia has already been discarded. The pistol Exh. P. 1 containing two spent cartridges Exh. P. 2 was allegedly produced by Gul Khanan to the I O. Thus it is not proved on record that the unlicensed revolver was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance are therefore erroneous in law.