SHAWAR GUL Versus THE STATE
ORDER
1. ABDUL, GHANI KHAN KHATTAK J. ‑This application by Shawar Gul son of Sultan Khan resident of Tajori, Tehsil Lekki, District Bannu arises out of the following facts:‑
2. He was convicted and sentenced by the judgment of 25 th October, 1971 of the Sessions Judge, Derajat Camp Bannu. The learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the accused made no order with regard to the disposal of the case property. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner was confirmed by the High Court and in appeal to the Supreme Court their Lordships of the Supreme Court made the following observations:‑
3. "The autopsy on the dead body of She deceased showed that he had an inlet wound l " x 1' in the sixth inter‑costal space, 4" mindline on the right side of the chest and 7 corresponding exit pellet wounds below the left collar bone and medial to the interior axillary line in an area of 3" x 2" x' one inlet wound 1/6' on the lateral aspect of the middle fore‑arm in the front and corresponding exit wound on the leteral aspect of front of middle left arm . . . . . . . . on disection under injury No. 2, the doctor discovered wads. . . . . . . .The medical evidence however, does Dot disclose any bullet injury to the deceased, nor was the I. O. able to discover any hole which should normally have been the case when a .303 bullet hits a wall. There fore, this creates a serious doubt as to the participation of 'Mir Ali and he in my opinion is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges . . . . As against Shawar Khan appellant No. 1 the case ends on a different footing. The evidence of the three‑eye‑witnesses, who were able to indentify him, stands corroborated by a number of confirmatory facts. Immediately after the incident he disappeared from his residence and remained at large until he surrendered to the A. S. I. on 26‑11‑69.......The next piece of confirmatory evidence is provided by the medical evidence. According to the evidence of Mst. Sakina and Mst. Rapi Jana, Shawar Gul was the first to fire at the deceased with his shotgun from a close range hitting hire on the chest . . . . .It would be unreasonable to suggest that they would spare the real culprits and name among others Shawar Gul as one of the assailants merely because he had a long standing enmity with Gul Badshah uncle of the deceased . . . . Having considered the entire evidence the case against Shawar Gul under section 302, P. P. C. and 449 P. P. C. in my opinion beyond reasonable doubt. His appeal having been dismissed. . ."
4. The application submitted by the petitioner for the return of his shot gun probably was considered to be under sections 517 or 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the sections of law are not applicable to the circumstances of the case and as such this is a case which is not within the purview of those cases for which the Code specifically provides, therefore, an order within the meaning of "or otherwise to secure the ends of justice" in section 516‑A of the Code would be pressed into service so as to clear the ambiguity. As alluded to above, the case of the petitioner was distinguished on the basis of the gun used in the crime. Therefore, there is no reason for return of the gun in question and we under provision of the above section order the gun in question as confiscated to the State.
5. S. Q.
6. Order accordingly.