KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE Ijaz Hussain Batalvi , Ch. Sabir

QURBAN SADIQ IKRAM, J. ‑‑ This is an appeal by Khan Muhammad against the judgment, dated 27‑3‑1982 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. He was sentenced to one year's R.I. under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Khan Muhammad accused was arrested in a murder case. On 25‑2‑1980, while in custody, he led the police to reeds lying in front of his house and got recovered gun P.1 alongwith 4 live cartridges P.2/1‑4 from the said reeds which was taken in possession by S.I. Ghulam Qasim vide memo. Exh. P.A. The accused had no licence for this gun. A complaint Exh. P.B. was drafted by S.I. Ghulam Qasim on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh. P.B./1 was recorded. The accused was challaned and convicted as stated above.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record of this case. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Muhammad Sher (P.W.1) and S.I. Ghulam Qasim (P.W.2). The accused denied the recovery at his instance. He pleaded innocence but produced no evidence in defence.

4. Muhammad Sher (P.W.1) supported the prosecution case. He admitted that he was not a Lambardar. He also admitted that there were two Lambardars and three members in his village. He admitted that his cousin Nadir was challaned in the murder of Muhammad Khan Manda in 1979 and that the said Muhammad Khan was related to the co‑accused of the present appellant in the main murder case. Both the prosecution witnesses made consistent statements during the trial. It is correct that Muhammad Sher (P.W.1) had some enmity with co‑accused of the present appellant in the main murder case but he had no enmity A whatsoever directly with Khan Muhammad accused /appellant. We find no reason to discard his evidence in the instant case. The gun was recovered from the reeds lying in front of the house of the appellant. He was, therefore, in possession of the said gun at the time of its recovery. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the gun P.1 was a licensed gun of one Muhammad Shari Gujjar of Chak No. 23‑A Janubi. It was, therefore, argued that the appellant could not be convicted for the recovery of said gun. We have considered these arguments but find the same without any merits. Khan Muhammad appellant was not a licence‑holder of this gun. He was also not a retainer alongwith the licensee. He could, therefore, not have possessed/ retained this gun with himself.

5. In view of the above, we find that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant. He was convicted in the main murder case. We, therefore, maintain his conviction and sentence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The sentence in this case will run concurrently to the sentence awarded to Khan Muhammad appellant in the main murder case.

H.A.K Appeal dismissed.