1. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.---By this Appeal, the appellant/accused Shahid Rasool alias Shahid Commando son of Rasool Ahmed has assailed the judgment of the trial Court dated 3-12- 2001, whereby he was Convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The case arose out of F.I.R. No,168 of 1996 under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, registered at Police Station New Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that -on 11-4-1996, the appellant/accused led the police party and produced one rifle alongwith 10 live bullets, loaded in the magazine from the bushes adjoining to the wall of the graveyard. The police, after usual investigation sent-up the appellant/accused to stand trial.
3. The trial Court framed the charge under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance against the appellant/accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case examined P.W.1 Head Constable Muhammad Akram as Exh.3, he produced mashirnma of arrest and recovery as Exh.3- A. P.W.2 A.S.I. Muhammad Wasif Qureshi as Exh.4, he produced F.I.R. as Exh.4-A. The DDA closed the prosecution side by Statement Exh.5 The appellant/accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegation made against him by the prosecution and stated that he was entangled falsely in the case because he is a member of MQM.
5. The trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above.
6. We have heard Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused Shahid Itasool alias Shahid Commando and Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State. The latter does not support the impugned judgment.
7. The perusal of the material placed on record shows that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is contradictory, discrepant one and inspires no confidence. It is the case of the prosecution that rifle No,C-3447/4 was recovered from the possession of the appellant/accused whereas P.W.1 Muhammad Akram produced rifle bearing No,C-7444 before the trial Court. According to mashirnama. 10 live bullets were loaded in the magazine of the rifle recovered from appellant/accused but in trial Court 14 live bullets were produced, including two bullets of the kalashnikov. The mashirnama of recovery shows that the rifle recovered was found wrapped in black cloth but in trial Court white-cloth was produced. Moreover the alleged recovered rifle was not sealed at A the spot. Admittedly, the place of recovery was open and accessible to everyone. It is well-settled that each and every circumstance creating doubt is not necessarily to be mentioned in the judgment. Even a single circumstance which creates doubt in the mind of a reasonable and prudent persons is sufficient for acquittal.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant/accused beyond any shadow of doubt.
9. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused is set aside. The appellant/accused is in custody. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.