SAQLAIN KHAN Versus THE STATE
1. RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- -- Saqlain Khan was sent up by Police Station Isa Khel for trial for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Special Court No.2, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, vide its judgment, dated 2-2-1992, convicted and sentenced Saqlain Khan under section 13 of Arms Ordinance to seven years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. 50,000, in default thereof to suffer further one year's R.I. He was however, given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution story in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R. Exh.PA., was to the effect that Ghulam Murtaza, S.I. with a police party was present at Mitha Khattak on patrol duty when he received information that Saqlain Khan with another culprit of a dacoity case were present in the Mountain of Village Hamranwala. He raided the mountain from where accused Saqlain Khan was apprehended with Klashnikov P.1 and 28 live cartridges P.2/1-28. He could not produce any licence therefore by means of complaint Exh.PA., formal F.I.R. was registered. Klashnikov P.1 with bullets was secured vide memo. Exh.P.B.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses in all. Abdul Majeed, H.C. P.W.1 had drawn formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1, on the basis of complaint Exh.PA. sent by Ghulam Murtaza S.I. Bashir Ahmed, A.S.I., P.W.2, was present with raiding party when on 4-12-1991, at about 1 p.m., they apprehended the appellant with unlicensed Klashnikov P.1. Ghulam Murtaza, S.I. P.W.3 had given a detailed account of the occurrence by corroborating the version given in the F.I.R.
4. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He attributed the registration of case due to enmity with one Atta Muhammad an influential person.
5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to establish its case because nobody from the locality was associated with the recovery proceedings. Submitted that the defence had succeeded in establishing that the case against the appellant was registered on account of mala fide. Argued that there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. No doubt only the police officials had appeared as prosecution witnesses. They were put to the test of lengthy cross-examination but nothing was brought on the file to suggest that they were not truthful or the case was registered on account of mala fide. In cross-examination, P.W.2 had stated that two persons from public were also taken along. No other question was put to the witness to find out why they were not made to witness the recovery memo. Even the Investigating Officer was not asked to explain this position. In the absence of any explanation no finding can be given whether at the relevant time any other witness was present with the police or not. The defence should have put these questions. Even otherwise in Mianwali people generally hesitate to come forward to give evidence in such like cases. As for the contention that there are discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, we have noticed that there is hardly any discrepancy. The prosecution evidence inspire confidence, therefore, without hesitations .we accept the same and hold that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal fails which is dismissed.
7. Appeal dismissed.