MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE

The petitioner, Khadim Hussain has filed this revision under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. challenging the judgments of his conviction and sentence. The learned Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo six months' R.I, under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 for keeping an unlicensed knife vide judgment dated 31‑8‑1978. The petitioner went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 4‑10‑1978.

2. The prosecution produced Khalid Hussain P.W.1, Muhammad Shafi P.W.2, and Muhammad Ishaq A.S.I. P.W.3 to prove the recovery of knife from the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegation and stated that he has falsely been involved in the case. In support of his plea, the petitioner produced Ashiq Ali D.W.1 and Muhammad Hamif D.W.2. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution version on the basis of the evidence deposed by Muhammad Ishaque, A.S.I., the Investigating Officer in the case. It may be pointed out that the other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner but instead requests that he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Admittedly, the two public witnesses, namely Muhammad Shy P.W.2 and Khalid Hussian P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of knife from the possession of the petitioner. The only evidence left in the case is that of Muhammad Ishaque, A.S.I. P.W.3. The evidence of the Investigating Officer has not been corroborated by some other reliable and trustworthy evidence. In my view, the solitary statement of Police Officer is not sufficient to convict the petitioner. The prosecution failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond doubt. The petitioner is a washerman and while making his statement in Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. clearly disclosed that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the police inasmuch as he demanded his charges from the police for washing their clothes. I am of the view that the possibility of the false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out altogether. I, therefore, while giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner proceed to acquit him. The petitioner is on bail and his bail bond shall stand discharged. This petition succeeds and is allowed.

M.Y.H./K‑144/L

Petition accepted.