RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---Appellant Muzaffar son of Bhola was tried by the learned Judge, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Gujranwala, under section 13-A of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, because he was found in possession of a Kalashnikov (P.1) alongwith seven live cartridges (P.2/1-7) without having a licence for keeping the said weapon. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to seven years R.I. Plus a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to further undergo one year's R.I. By the learned trial Judge on 10-7-1990.
2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 23-5-1989 Aman Ullah, S.H.O. Police Station Sabz Peer, District Sialkot, got an information that some persons had made preparations for committing a dacoity and that they were 9r present in village Ashiqpur with weapons. After receipt of the information, the Police Officer constituted a raiding party and went to village Ashiqpur. On sight, the accused started firing at the Police party and thereafter ran away towards village Hanjeri Syedean.
The police party chased them and in consequence the appellant Muzaffar was arrested. As a result of -search, a Klashnikov (P.1) fitted with magazine containing seven live cartridges (P2/1-7) was recovered from his possession of the appellant. It was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. In the presence of Muhammad Yousaf, Nazir Ahmad and Nazar Hussain P.M. The appellant failed to produce any licence for keeping the weapon with him. Aman Ullah, S.H.O., therefore, drafted a complaint (Exh.PA.) which was sent to Police Station Sabz Peer through Ghulam Mustafa, Head Constable for registration of a case against him. Aman Ullah, S.H.O. Investigated the case and recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Muhammad Yousuf P.W.1, Munir Ahmad, Head Constable P.W.2, Nazar Hussain P.W.3, Nazir Ahmad P.W.4 and Aman Ullah, S.I./S.H.O., C.I.A. Staff Pasrur P.W.5.
3. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations levelled against him. He stated that he had been implicated in the case on account of enmity with the prosecution witnesses. However, he did not produce any evidence in support of his plea.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel forcefully that Muhammad Yousuf P.W.1, Nazir Hussain P.W.3 and Nazir Ahmad P.W.4 did not at all support the prosecution version and that there was absolutely no other reliable evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime.
Learned counsel for the State was unable to say anything substantially m reply to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at some length and have gone through the record carefully. The admitted position is that Muhammad Yousuf, Nazir Hussain and Nazir Ahmad P.Ws. Did not support the prosecution version in their evidence before Court. They are the public witnesses. Aman Ullah, S.I./complainant was the only witness who supported the prosecution case.
His evidence alone is not sufficient to register conviction against the appellant. There is no evidence on record to corroborate his statement. The Courts are slow to believe the police Witnesses especially when they are not supported by the public witnesses. There is also no circumstantial evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. We have not thus been persuaded to believe the solitary statement made by the complainant in this case. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce, cogent evidence to corroborate the statement of the Police Officer which it failed to do so. It will not at all be safe to rely upon the solitary statement of the Police Officer m the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. There are circumstances which would certainly lead to conclude the possibility of the false implication of the appellant in the case. It is also not known as to why the remaining accused were not arrested. There is also no evidence to show as to whether or not efforts were made to locate the remaining accused. This omission on the part of the prosecution would create serious doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
The independent witnesses from public, namely; Muhammad Yousuf. Nazir Hussain and Nazir Ahmad did not support the recovery of weapon from appellant. This question earlier came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court, which declined to accept the only statement of a Police Officer for conviction and sentence of an accused. Reference may usefully be made to Zaman Iqbal v. The State (Criminal Appeal No.662 of 1991) in this behalf. We respectfully agree with the rule laid down in the referred case. In this view of the matter, there is no alternative but to accept the appeal 2.f the appellant.
It is accordingly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, beyond doubt against the appellant. His appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.