1. The appellant Punhoon son of Ariz Muhammad was charged under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and was tried before the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, who has convicted him under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For 12 months and to pay fine of Rs.500 or in default to undergo further R.I. For one month vide judgment, dated 9th August, 1991.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was involved in a murder case, and during the investigation of that case he was found in possession of SBBL Gun No.31166 for which he had no licence, and therefore, S.H.O. Mumtaz Ali lodged report under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance against the appellant.
3. After necessary investigation the accused/appellant Punhoon was sent up before the Court.
4. A formal charge was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. At the trial prosecution examined Mashir Adam Khan, P.W.1, he has produced attested copy of Mashirnama of recovery as Exh.6. S.H.O. Mumtaz Ali P.W.2, he has produced F.I.R. As Exh.8.
6. After close of the prosecution case, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he has denied the allegations. However, he did not examine himself on oath but has examined his nephew Ali Asghar in his defence. D.W. Ali Asghar has stated that accused Punhoon is his uncle. He possesses one SBBL .12 bore gun for which he has a licence. About 2-1/2 years back dacoits had attacked their village and there was indiscriminate firing as a result of which Abdul Wahid was killed. On the following morning the police had come and searched all the houses. He resides with accused Punhoon. The police had searched his house and had taken away his licensed gun alongwith 5-6 live cartridges. The S.H.O. Had taken him to Police Station Mithiani.
7. The S.H.O. Had fired from his gun in order to ascertain whether it was in working order. He was released by police after some time. The S.H.O. Had taken away his gun alongwith licence. In cross- examination he has deposed that he had not reported the matter to the police about the attack of dacoits on their village. In reply to the firing of dacoits, the villagers did not fire at the dacoits. The dacoits had fired from Kalashnikovs and other fire-arms. He has denied that he was giving false evidence as the accused was related to him.
8. The learned trial Judge after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence has convicted the accused as described above, and the present appeal is directed against the above judgment of conviction.
9. I have heard Mr. A.Q. Halepota, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Jelaluddin Baloch, learned counsel appearing, for the State and have gone through the R&P of the case.
10. It was contended by Mr. A.Q. Halepota, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the gun in question was licensed gun of Ali Asghar nephew of the appellant, and the same has been foisted on the appellant. That the case was false and the Mashir of recovery was close relation of the complainant party of the main case and therefore, the learned Judge had erred in relying upon his evidence.
11. Mr. Jalaluddin Baloch, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the conviction of the appellant.
12. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the R&P or the case. The evidence of Mashir Adam shows that after his arrest the accused led the police and Mashirs to his house and produced a single barrel gun from his house. The police had secured the same and prepared such Mashirnama and obtained his signature. The evidence of Adam Khan is fully corroborated by S.H.O.
13. Mumtaz Ali. No question was put to Mashir Adam Khan to show that he was related to the complainant party of the main case. Even no suggestion was made to the S.H.O. That the gun said to have been secured from accused Punhoon was a licensed gun of his nephew Ali Asghar. The evidence of Mashir Adam and S.H.O. Appears to be straight forward, natural and reliable. They had no enmity with the accused nor they had any reason to falsely implicate him. As far as defence evidence was concerned, defence witness Ali Asghar being nephew of the accused, he did not make any application to any police officer or other authority that his licensed gun was taken away by the police and has been foisted on his uncle. He has not given even the number of his gun. His evidence appears to be afterthought and is unreliable and therefore, the same is ruled out of consideration.
14. From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he was rightly convicted.
15. However, since the appellant stands convicted in connected main murder case, and his appeal has been dismissed, the sentence of this case shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded to the appellant in the murder case. With the above modification, the appeal is dismissed.