SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- The appellant, Muhammad Aslam was tried by-Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act on a charge under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965. Vide the judgment, dated 14-7-1991, the appellant was found guilty of the aforesaid charge and thus he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000 or in default to suffer R.J. For a term of one year.
2. Aggrieved by his conviction, the appellant preferred this appeal which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
3. The prosecution case in brief giving rise to prosecution of the appellant is that on 25-5-1991 a police party headed by Inspector Malik Abbass Khan, S.H.O. Police Station Chung, Lahore alongwith Muhammad Saleh, P:W.2, Head Constable Ahmed Ali, P.W.3 and other police constables had gone in a vehicle in connection with the investigation of a case at Bund Road. According to Inspector Abbass Khan, P.W.4, at Bund Road, he received a secret information that the appellant is present alongwith a klashnikov near Pattan Niaz Beg and is waiting to board a boat and if raid is conducted he could be apprehended alongwith Klashnikov. On the receipt of than information, the police party headed by Inspector Abbass Khan proceeded towards Pattan Niaz Beg end noticed the appellant lying under a Keeker tree. On seeing the police party, the appellant got up and aimed the Ylashnikov towards the police party but the police party threatened him with their fire--arms and then the appellant surrendered and was taken into custody and from his possession, Klashnikov, P.1, alongwith 20 bullets, P.2/1-20 were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by Inspector Ghulam Abbass P.W.4, Muhammad Saleh, A.S.I., P.W.2 and Head Constable Ahmed Ali.
P.W.3. Inspector Ghulam Abbass sent a complaint Exh.PA. To the police station for registration of a case where formally F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was drawn by Head Constable Muhammad Aslam, P.W.1.
4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and the State we have carefully perused the entire record of the case. To substantiate its case the prosecution placed reliance upon the testimony of recovery witnesses, namely, Muhammad Adam, P.W.1, Muhammad Saleh, P.W.2 and Ahtned Ali, P.W.3 and Abbass Khan, P.W.4. In fact, the perusal of the statement of Muhammad Saleh, A.S.I., P.W.2 speaks a lot about the intrinsic worth of the prosecution case with regard to the alleged recovery made from the appellant. No doff that Muhammad Saleh was declared hostile but his statement cannot be lightly brushed aside, particularly, in the circumstances of thus case.
Muhammad Saleh, P.W.2 served 23 years in Pakistan Army as a Subedar and then was inducted in the police department as commando. In his examination --in-chief he supported the prosecution case but in cross-examination he denied the recovery. In fact the following passage of his cross- examination is worth reproduction: "I was not the member of the raiding party when the accused was apprehended. It is correct that the Inspector told me at the police station that Klashnikov rifle and the bullets had ban recovered from the accused and I became a witness at his instance. Memo. Exh.P.B., was prepared at the police station and I signed the same there. It is correct that the accused was arrested by the police 4/5 days prior to the occurrence. Since I was not present at the time of arrest of the accused and recoveries so I personally do not know the details thereof."
In the light of his statement and his cross-examination by the defence counsel as well as the District Attorney, a shadow of doubt is cast upon the veracity of the statement of Inspector Abbass Khan, P.W.4 and the other witness namely Ahmed Ali, P.W.3. It is noteworthy to mention that the trend of cross--examination of the two other witnesses is in line with the facts emerging out of the cross-examination of Muhammad Saleh, A.S.I. The perusal of the entire E prosecution case reveals that the appellant had been taken into custody by the police 4/5 days before the occurrence, no recovery had taken place and in fact A everything was fabricated and forged at the police station.
It is further surprising to note that no witness from the public was made to join the investigation. It is also surprising to note that the police officials denied as to the presence of any other passenger waiting to board a boat at the Pattan. All these circumstances clearly show that the police in order to prove its efficiency before the higher officers has fabricated the case. This is not the only case in which we have made such remarks about the conduct of the police but to two other appeals similar observations were, made and it was directed that the copies of the judgments be sent to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab and' Secretary to Government of the Punjab in the Home Department for their perusal and for such action as they deem fit.
5. It is high time that police force instead of terrorising the people should serve as any agency to help them and not to convert itself into an instrument of tyranny. We would pose a question to the higher police officers; can the appellant be compensated for the torture and the misery he has suffered in facing the trial and being behind the bars and also the expenditure he has incurred.
Having seen the ordeal through which a common citizen has to pass and face by official agency can we claim that we are living in a civilized society. It is high time that the system should be changed so that the police becomes an enlightened force and protector of the oppressed as a cornerstone of a civilized society.
6. Apart from these observations, as far as the fate of this appeal is concerned, we have no option but to accept the appeal. Accordingly we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.