' Muhammad Asghar was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge Jhelum, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance and sentenced to R. I. For one year. He has appealed.
2. This case is an off-shoot of the connected murder case re: state v. Khan and others. The prosecution case is that during the investigation of the connected murder case, Muhammad Asghar appellant appeared before' Malik Fazal Dad S. H.
0. And produced gun (Exh. P. 1) before him which he took into possession vide memo Exh. P. A. He drafted the complaint Exh. P. B. And after the investigation challaned, the accused.
3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge, denied the prosecution, allegations against him and contended that this case was fabricated against him in order to strengthen, the main murder case. He produced a certified copy (Exh. D. A.) of the .Statement of Muhammad Zeman made by him in a Civil Suit titled Phalla v. Fateh Muhammad. No other evidence was led in defence.
4. The recovery was witnessed by. Feroze Khan and Muhammad Zaman P. Ws. Feroze Khan died before the commencement of the trial and his statement in the committing Court was transferred to the Sessions file under section 33 of the Evidence Act. Muhammad Zaman and Malik Fazal Dad. S. H.
0. Supported the recovery in their statements at the trial. It may be mentioned in the very outset that in the statements of the Investigating Officer and the recovery witness there is nothing to show that the gun allegedly recovered from the appellant was unlicensed one and probably for that reason no question was put to him under section 342, Cr. P. C. That the said gun was unlicensed.
Even otherwise the evidence of the recovery witnesses is full of material discrepancies and does not inspire any confidence. In examination-in-chief Muhammad Zaman P. W. Stated that the appellant produced rifle Exh. P. 1 before the police at the balthak of Sabir Khan but Feroze Khan P. W.
Contradicted him saying that aforesaid Sabir Khan had no baithak at all. In the committing Court Muhammad Zaman P. W. Had stated that the appellant produced rifle and Lal Khan accused in the connected murder case produced a revolver in front of the house of aforesaid Lal Khan A whereas Feroze Khan P. W. Deposed that the appellant produced gun Exh. P. 1 before the S. I. In his presence while Muhammad lqbal accused in the connected murder case produced a revolver before the recovery of gun Exh. P.
1. Zaman P. W. Further admitted that he was questioned (interrogated) by the police in eight for ten theft cases. These discrepancies with regard to the place and mode of recovery create a serious doubt as to the genuineness of the alleged recovery.
5. For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that the case against the appellant is not free from doubt. Consequently, I accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charge against him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.