MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALIAS GUDDOO Versus THE STATE
MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J. --- Muhammad Anwar alias Guddoo son of Sardar Khan aged 25 years was tried by the learned Judge, Special Court No.IV for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, I chore Division, Lahore, who vide his impugned judgment, dated 31-5-1993 convicted and sentenced him under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) to undergo 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.50,000, in default whereof to suffer S.I. for one year more. He was also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appellant has come up in appeal against his conviction and sentence.
2. The case was registered against the appellant vide F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 with the allegations that the appellant while on physical remand made a disclosure before Muhammad Anwar S.H.O. (P.W.2) in presence of P.W.1 Ghulam Dastgir, A.S.I. and other officials and led to the recovery of illicit Klashnikov P.1 and 10 life bullets P.2/1-10 alongwith magazine P.3 which were secured by P.W.2 vide memo. Exh.P.A.
3. The prosecution examined two P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Ghulam Dastgir, A.S.I. had witnessed the recovery of crime property P.1, P.2/1-10 and P.3 at the instance of the appellant secured by P.W.2 vide memo. Exh.PA. attested by him. P.W.2 Muhammad Anwar S.I./S.H.O. interrogated the appellant in presence of P.W.1 and others who made a disclosure and led to the recovery of crime property P.1 to P.3 from his house, which was secured by him vide memo. Exh.PA. attested by P.W.1 and Shakir Ali P.W. (given up).
4. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and the recovery of crime property. He produced D.W.1 Ghani Muhammad, Lamberdar who stated about the innocence of the appellant. The appellant had not made statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. Shakir AIL a public witness was not produced by the prosecution. P.Ws.l and 2 are police officials. P.W.2 is the complainant as well A as recovery witness and Investigating Officer whereas P.W.1 A.S.I. were working under P.W.2. The appellant was arrested on 2-7-1992 and on the last day of his personal remand he was stated to have led to the recovery of crime property which was recovered from an unlocked room. The case F.I.R. No.331/91 under section 506/337-F, P.P.C., dated 22-12-1991 was got registered on the direction of this Court on the complaint of Muhammad Ashraf, brother of the appellant against S.I. Ghulam Ahmad. No public witness was associated for the recovery of weapons from the locality. The place of recovery is a big village and P.W.1 during cross-examination stated that people were moving about in the village Abaadi from where they proceeded to the place of recovery. Nobody from the vicinity joined the recovery proceedings. The place of recovery was not m the exclusive possession of the appellant. Only 8 females were present when the recovery was stated to be effected. The door of the store from where the recovery was effected was lying open.
6. Pursuant to the above, we are of the view 'that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt against the appellant and giving him benefit of doubt he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
N.H.Q./M-169,2/L Appeal accepted.