' On conviction under section 13, Arms Ordinance, XX, 1965, the accused has been sentenced to one year's R.I. By a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, Sh. Mumtaz Ali, on 2-3-1987; and he has preferred the present appeal.
2. The accused, amongst others, had involvement in a murder case that was registered at Police Station Kasur on 28-8-1983; and in the investigation of that case, he is stated to have led to recovery of crime weapon, Chhuri, P.1, seized by the police vide memo. Exh.PA. On 6-9-1983. Since it was a sharp-edged weapon of prohibited dimensions, for keeping which the accused could not produce any licence, a complaint Exh.P.B. Was drawn up against the accused by the Investigating Officer, Muhammad Saleem Khan S.I., who has appeared as P.W.1 and has lent substantial support to the prosecution case. The learned trial Judge has conclusively relied upon his sole testimony, holding him to be a wholly disinterested and dependable person.
3. No person from the locality was associated with the process; and thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were violated. A recovery witness from the public has been examined as P.W.2, but he is not a resident of the locality and is said to have deposed for the prosecution, because of his friendly contacts with Barkat Ali, complainant of the murder case. The learned State counsel has not been able to satisfy me about reliability and authenticity of the testimony furnished by P.W.2, and as to what had prevented the police from getting hold of disinterested persons from the vicinity to witness the recovery.
4. The Police Officer may not have acted under influence of any personal animus against the accused; but it will not be denied that an Investigating Officer always is on the look-out to collect whatever material he can against the accused in order to have him indicted. For strengthening the main murder case the S.I. Seems to have involved the accused person in another offence.
' Thus, the I.O. Might have made an endeavour to serve public interest, but he cannot be said to have advanced interests or cause of justice. The Court should have looked for corroboration of testimony of the I.O., coming forth from disinterested and unconcerned quarters. It would certainly not be safe to place implicit and conclusive reliance upon the solitary testimony of the I.O.
5. I, therefore, do not see eye to eye with the learned trial Judge, when he observes that even if statement of the other P.W. Is ignored, evidence of the I.O. Alone would establish the prosecution case and would fully justify conviction of the accused. The prosecution case is not free from doubt; and giving the accused the benefit of doubt I would acquit him. The appeal is accepted.