' SH. UAZ NISAR, J.-Zaman Iqbal son of Akbar Alt was tried by Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala under the Arms Ordinance, 1965. By judgment, dated 17-5-1991 the learned Court convicted him under section 13/XX/1965 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to four years, R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For six months. He has appealed.
2. The prosecution case is that on 20-2-1991 Fateh Khan S.I. P.W3 and Tufail Hussain, A.S.I. P.W3 alongwith some police constables were on patrol duty on Lala Musa, Gujrat Road. They sighted the appellant who was wrapping a Chadar around him. On being called, he tried to slip away but the police succeeded in apprehending him. On the search of his person a Klashnikov and 30 bullets were recovered from his possession through memo Exh. P.C. Attested by Tufail Hussain, A.S J. P.W.2 and Fateh Khan S J. P.W3. He did not possess any licence. Consequently, he was challaned under the Arms Ordinance.
' To prove the recovery of Klashnikov and bullets the prosecution examined Tufail Hussain A.S.I. P.W3 and Fateh Khan S J. P.W3.
3. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations and disowned the Klashnikov and bullets and stated that he was a Councillor of Chak Dina and was got implicated by his political rivals. In his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, he stated that he was arrested from his Dera at the instance of Ghulain Muhammad, a retired Police Inspector who was his political opponent. No evidence was led by him in defence.
4. Relying on the evidence of Tufail Hussain, A.S.I. P.W3 and Fateh Khan Sub Inspector PW3, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
5. It is contended that although recovery was alleged to have been made from a roadside, frequented by traffic, no public witness was joined in the recovery proceedings. As both the recovery witnesses are police officials no implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony without some independent corroboration, it is maintained.
6. Leamed counsel for the State submits that as the police officials are as good witnesses as ordinary persons, therefore, their evidence was rightly acted upon.
7. Section 24 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance makes applicable the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code to the searches made for the recovery of the arms. Section 103, Cr.P.C, requires the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness a search. But it has been observed that the police invariably does not follow the above-mentioned provisions of law, instead they tend to rely on the phrase "that a police officer too is a good witness as any other witness". No doubt, in the cases where different circumstances taken together conclusively establish a fact in issue through the unshabkable evidence of a police witness his evidence may be accepted but it may not always be safe to act upon his uncorroborated testimony. In the case of an ordinary witness certain well-established principles of the appreciation of his testimony are kept in view i.e, his credentials, interest, involvement, the probability of his presence at the relevant time and the manner in which he behaves himself in the witness-box to see whether he is liar, partisan, interested or biased.
8. The police officer is not only a party to the case itself but he is also personally interested in its outcome. He simultaneously acts as a prosecutor, investigator and a witness in the same case. In the matter of determining the veracity of an ordinary witness the Courts generally put him to certain tests but in the case of a police witness, a difficulty is felt in elucidating the truth from him because of Iris experience and knowledge about the questions likely to be put to him by or on behalf of the accused in cross-examination. The ordinary witnesses may make conflicting statements but the officials cannot be expected to make contradictory statements. The presence of a neutral witness is, therefore, a necessity. The requirement of law that recovery of incriminating articles should be made in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality would be defeated if the recoveries are made only by the police officials themselves and no public witness is associated in the process of recovery. The Court may, however, take into account the evidence of a police officer conclusively if in the background of the attending circumstances it inspires confidence but the proposition that a police officer is as good a witness as any other witness is not of universal application and should not be misinterpreted to mean that no corroboration of his testimony should be sought and it should be accepted as gospel truth. '
8-A. In the instant case both the recovery witnesses are police officials. Although the recovery was alleged to have been made from a public thoroughfare, no attempt was made to associate any member of the public in the recovery proceedings. It is hardly believable that the appellant would keep on advancing towards the police even on seeing them and would not have tried to slip away.
He could have easily thrown away the Klashnikov on seeing the police party.
9. For the foregoing reasons the prosecution evidence is not of sufficient intrinsic reliability to sustain the prosecution case by itself. Consequently, the appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquited of the charge. He shall be released, if not required in any other case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.