MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J .--- This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, whereby he on 13-8-1990 convicted Muhammad Ashraf appellant under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. The whole of his property was also forfeited in favour of the State.

2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping bullet box containing three hand-grenades P.1 to P.3 and three fuses on 28-9-1988. The appellant had no licence to keep the hand-grenades. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses. Umar Hayat S.I. (P.W.1) is a formal witness. He drafted the F.I.R. Muhammad Saleem (P.W.2), Nazir Ahmad S.I. (P.W.5) and Hakim Ali S.I. (P.W.3) are the witnesses of recovery. Muhammad Saleem (P.W.2) refused to support the alleged recovery of hand-grenades etc. from the appellant. However, Hakim Ali S.I. (P.W.3) and Nazir Ahmad S.I. (P.W.5) have supported the prosecution case. Shahid Mahmood. Khan P.W.4/Assistant Inspector of Explosive is Fire-arm Expert. He has proved his report.

4. When examined under' section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of hand-grenades from him and raised the plea of false implication.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as Muhammad Saleem public man has not supported the recovery of hand-grenades from the appellant. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. We feel persuaded, to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that there were three witnesses of the recovery of hand -grenades from the appellant, out of them Muhammad Saleem belongs to the' public and the remaining two were/are police officials. Muhammad Saleem P.W.2 has not supported the recovery of the hand-grenades from the appellant. The police official s were/are naturally interested in the conviction of the appellant. There is no independent corroboration of the statements of the police officials rather there is contradiction of their statements by an independent person. The statement of Muhammad Saleem P.W.2 cannot and should not be discarded for the reasons that he was declared hostile. The declaration of hostile by a Court does not make the statement of a witness doubtful in any manner. The Court only allows the Prosecutor to cross-examine the witness to shake his credibility. In the instant case, nothing adverse to the witness and advantageous to the prosecution could be elicited through cross-examination of this witness. In these circumstances, we feel that no implicit reliance can be placed on the statements of the police officials.

7. Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bond.

H.B.T./M-3213/L Appeal accepted.