JUDGMENTS.M. ZUBAIR, J.- Wasim Dar was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), by the learned Judge, Special Court of Supperssion of Terrorist Activities No. III, Lahore. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment date 27-2-1994, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to five years RJ. Plus fine of Rs.25,000/- or in default to undergo further R.I. For one year. The convict has appealed to this Court.
2. The prosecution case,in brief, is that on 19-1-1994, Muhammad Alam ASI (PW2) along with the police party, including Shaukat Ali constable (PW.1) was on patrol duty near Chowk Ganda Engine, when he received spy information regarding possession of illicit arms by the. Appellant. On the pointation of informer, the appellant was apprehended, who was found in possession a klashnikov P.1 in his hand. It was unloaded and 25 bullets P.2/1-25 were found in the magazine. The articles were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PA.As the appellant did not have any licence, Muhammad Alam ASI (PW.2) drafted complaint ExJ'B and sent it to the police station for registration of the case, where formal FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded. After completion of ivestigation, the challan was submitted in the Court.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Shaukat Ali constable (PW.1) and Muhammad Alam ASI (PW.2).
4. The appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C, professed innocence and stated that on 15-1-1994 at about 330 p.m. Few police officers entered the house of his grand-mother in Gowalmandi, where he had slept for the night, to enquire about his maternal uncle Mahmood alias Mahnd, required in a firing case. He was not there, so the police apprehended the appellant, his maternal uncle Zaheer and their servant Muhammad Akram. They were taken to the police station and were confined till 19-1-1994, in challaned for possession of illicit arms. He also deposed that the police party also took away ornaments and other articles including the VCR from their house. He produced in defence Javed Iqbal (DW 1), Zahir Butt (DW 2) and Muhammad Aslam (DW3). He also tendered in defence copies of FIR No. 44/94 (Ex.DA) and FIR No. 46/94 (Ex.DB) and also documents Ex.DC/1-4 pertaining to payment of income-tax etc.
5. The learned trial Judge believing the prosecution evidence convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated above.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the recovery was made from the Bazar, where so many independent persons were present,but none of them was associated in the recovery. On the contrary, only police officials have witnessed the recovery and they have got animus against the appellant and his family as on the same day, the uncle of the appellant and his servant were also involved in cases under the Arms Ordinance. He farther submitted that the defence version was not given proper consideration.
7. The learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment.
8. We have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and have critically examined their respective submissions.
Admittedly, the recovery was made from a Bazar where so many independent witnesses were available but none of them has been associated in the recovery. The police officials, no doubt,are competent witnesses, but their evidence has to be appreciated with care and caution, because they have the tendency to falsely implicate persons in order to show their efficiency. In the present case, we find in view of the defence plea taken by the appellant, the recovery is not above suspicion and the prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charge. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.