JAVED IQBAL Versus THE STATE
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J: -- Javed Iqbal son of Muhammad Tufail alias Ghaseeta was sent up by Police Station Bhowana, District Jhang, for trial, for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Faisalabad vide its judgment, dated 20-5-1992, convicted and sentenced Javed Iqbal appellant to 7 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,00,000 (one lacy, or in default R.I. for two years. Convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. Prosecution story in brief as disclosed in complaint Exh.PA., lodged by Muhammad Ayub, Sub-Inspector, was to the effect that on 28-11-1988, the first informant alongwith police contingent was present in front of police station at the barrier for Nakabandi, a white coloured car came from Chiniot side which was stopped. A person sitting next to the driver seat who gave his name as Javed Iqbal, was found with a Klashnikov. He disclosed that he was a police constable. Its magazine contained 30 bullets and another magazine with 30 bullets was also found on his person. On inquiry said Javed Iqbal could not produce licence therefore, the present case.
After usual investigation challan was submitted in Court wherein prosecution examined Muhammad Ramzan, P.W.1, who had registered formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1, on the basis of complaint Exh.PA. on 28-11-1988. P.W.2, Nasrullah Khan, Inspector/S.H.O., had investigated the case and challaned the accused. Haq Nawaz, H.C. P.W.3, was Member of the raiding party who on 28-11-1988 saw a car bearing No.TS/7286 coming from Chiniot side which was stopped. On search the appellant Javed Iqbal was found in possession of a Klashnikov P.1 with a Magazine P.2 containing 30 bullets P.2/1-30. From his bag P.3 two Magazines P.4 and P.5 containing 30 bullets P.4/1-30 and 15 bullets P.5/1-15 were also recovered. The witness further stated that since said Javed Iqbal was Head Constable, therefore, known to him earlier as well. P.W.4, Muhammad Ayub Khan, S.I., was member of the raiding party and in his presence car bearing No.TS/7286 was stopped. Javed Iqbal appellant was found in possession of a Klashnikov with bullets. On his failure to produce licence the present case was registered.
3. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He in answer to a question further stated that he was posted at Police Lines, Jhang on 27-11-1988 and on the following day he went to his village after seeking oral permission to witness dog race. While he was coming back to saw the co-accused in a car bearing No.TS/7286 therefore, he took lift from them. When they reached near Police Station Bhowana he stopped the car in order to meet Haji Khawar, S.I., who was not available. Within his presence wireless message was received that Javed Iqbal, Constable had committed robbery in Chiniot and was going to Bhowana where he was arrested and involved in a false case. He also appeared on oath in his defence and pleaded innocence.
It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against him was not proved at all. Submitted that there were inherent contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4, therefore, the alleged recovery at the instance of the appellant was not proved. Argued that recovery was effected from a thoroughfare yet nobody from public was associated. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The prosecution in order to establish its case has mainly relied upon the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4. They were put to the test of cross-examination but nothing was brought on the file to suggest that they are not truthful witnesses or were interested in any manner. As far the place and time of arrest of the appellant is concerned, it has been accepted by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Nothing has been alleged against the witnesses. After going through the evidence, we find that it is inspiring confidence and can safely be relied upon. Resultantly, appeal fails which is dismissed.
N.H.Q./J-69/L
Appeal dismissed.