' ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHRY, J.--- This appeal is directed agianst judgment, dated 7-1-1996 passed by Mr. Muhammad Asif Khan, Judge Suppression of Terrorist Activities Court, Multan Division, Multan whereby he convicted the appellant under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs,10,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extneded.
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that Hamid Khan P.W.5 lodged a complaint Exh.P.A. With Muhammad Sharif, A.S.-I. On the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.1 was registered at Police Station Chehliyak, District Multan under section 13, Arms Ordinance read with section 420, P.P.C. It was alleged inter alia that the complainant had obtained licence for purchase of arm on 13-9-1993 which was got registered in General Post Office as a result of which the licensed arm had to be purchased by 31-9-1993. He was interested in purchasing arm at some cheap rate. In the meanwhile Mirza Imran Baig alongwith Abdul Qayyum (appellant) contacted the complainant and offered to sell rifle 222 which according to him was a licensed arm belonging to Imran Baig. As wife of Imran Baig was admitted in a hospital he wanted to raise money by selling the said rifle. He struck bargain for purchase of the rifle for Rs,6,000 in the presence of his father Ahmad Khan P.W.5 and brother-in-law Mushtaq Ahmad Khan. However, the rifle was to be delivered on 29-9-1993 which was received by him accordingly.
3. On 24-10-1993 a police party comprising of Muhammad Sharif, A.S.-I. Alongwith Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Hameed Constables was on patrol duty for detection of crime when Hamid P.W.4 produced rifle 222 (P.1) before the raiding party alongwith its magazine P.2 containing ten live cartridges P.3/1 to 10. The same were taken into possession vide Exh.D.B. Dated 24-10-1993. In the site plan Exh.P.C. Place of recovery of the rifle has been shown to have been procured in front of the house of Hamid Khan complainant.
4. Mirza Imran Baig, co-accused of the appellant could not be arrested and was declared absconder. The appellant was sent up to face trial whereas his said co-accused was shown in column No,2 as absconder. The appellant was separately tried by Mr. Muhammad Asif Khan, learned Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan. During the trial formal charge under section 13 of Arms Ordinance was framed against him who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses in all to substantiate the charge.
' P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are formal witnesses whereas P.W.5 complainant and P.W.4 his father are the main witnesses who reiterated the version given in the F.I.R. And narrated the story as has been detailed supra.
6. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations and stated that in fact rifle P.1 had been recovered from Hamid Khan and was planted on him to save his skin by cooking up a false story.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no recovery has been effected from the appellant and he has been falsely implicated merely as a scapegoat; that no information was laid before the police unless a raiding party reached the house of the complainant during the course of patrolling; that the prosecution story is inconsistent, unreasonable and not acceptable.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and maintained that P.W.4 and P.W.5 had no enmity against the appellant, therefore, their testimony had been rightly relied upon by the learned trial Judge and as such he defended the conviction recorded against the appellant.
9. We have perused the record and have given our anxious consideration to facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly the rifle 222 (P.1) was taken into possession by the raiding party during the course of their patrol duty and that too when they were present even according to the prosecution in front of the house of the complainant. It is not understandable as to why complainant kept the gun with him without receiving the license or getting the endorsement made thereon. It has come in the evidence that the complainant was aware that Abdul Qayyum and his companion Imran Baig used to deal in illicit arms then why did he opt to purchase the arm from them and that too without licence. The pretext that licence could not be delivered to him on account of illness or ailment of wife of Imran Baig is hardly acceptable. Viewing the matter frOm this angle complainant Hamid Khan himself because an accomplice and his evidence cannot be accepted unless corroboratory some other material evidence which is absolutely lacking in this case.
10. As observed above rifle P.1 had been recovered from the complainant, therefore, onus is upon him to satisfactorily explain the possession of the illicit arm which, we think, has not been discharged. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant has been implicated as an accused person to save the skin of the complainant. It has also come on the record that complaiannt's father Ahmad Khan P.W.4 is posted as District Accounts Officer in Multan, as such he had every opportunity to wield influence on the police and Investigating Agency. The prosecution case is not free from doubt, therefore, we are not inclined to uphold and maintain the conviction awarded against the appellant.
11. For the foregoing reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction recorded vide judgment, dated 7-1-1996 passed by Mr. Muhammad Asif Khan, Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan Division, Multan.
Appeal allowed.