MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal No.679 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he on 19- 6-1990 convicted Nasir Ahmad appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed Klashnikov P.1, magazines P.2, P.3 and 10 bullets P.3/1-10 on 16-12-1988.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses. Muhammad Saddiq P.W.1, Muhammad Safdar Inspector P.W.2, and Sardar Khan P.W.3 are the witnesses of the recovery of Klashnikov and bullets from the appellant. Sardar Khan and Muhammad Saddiq have not supported the prosecution case. Muhammad Safdar stated that on 16-12-1988 the appellant had led to the recovery of Klashnikov P.1, 2 magazines P.2 and P.3 and 10 live cartridges from inside the heap of chaff lying in the Kotha of his residential house, situated in Mauza Bajeeran within the limits of Police Station Kharian.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the recovery of Klashnikov and bullets from him. He did not produce evidence in defence.
5. Believing the statement made by Safdar, Inspector, P.W.2 and disbelieving the plea of false implication raised by the appellant, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. We feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that there were three witnesses of alleged recovery of Klashnikov and bullets. Two witnesses namely Muhammad Sadiq and Sardar Khan belong to the public. The third Muhammad Safdar, belongs to the police. The two persons from the public have not supported the recovery of the Klashnikov and bullets from the appellant. This being the position, we feel that it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of Muhammad Safdar. In these circumstances of the case, the rule of prudence does require independent corroboration of the statement of Muhammad Safdar Inspector, which we do not see in the case in hand.
7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and while giving him the benefit of doubt, Naseer Ahmad appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
S.A./N-3/L