ZAHIR KHAN Versus THE STATE Sardar Mohammad Ishaque , Ayoob Khanzada

1. This appeal is filed against judgment, dated 8-9-1987 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, South, Karachi, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under section 13-D Arms Ordinance and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.2,000 or in default further R.I. for 1 year.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that appellant Zahir Khan was arrested in the connected murder case and while in custody on 26-6-1984 led to the recovery of Chhuri from his house No. D118 Hijrat Colony, Karachi. Since the Chhuri so recovered had blade of 6 ", report was lodged against the appellant at Police Station Civil Lines under the Arms Ordinance. Prosecution examined in support of its case P.W.1 Mohammad Hussain, Mashir, and P.W.2 S.H.O. Nazeer Mohammad who lodged F.I.R. and made the recovery. Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied prosecution allegation and opted for examining himself on oath in his defence. In the statement on oath he adopted his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.

3. P.W.1 Mohammad Hussain stated in his deposition before the trial Court that his brother Hakim Khan was murdered. He said so perhaps for the reason that he and Hakim Khan both were from the same Beradari or community but otherwise as a matter of fact name of father of this witness is Ghulam Hussain while name of father of deceased Hakim Khan was Shah Zaman. This witness stated that in his presence appellant produced Chhuri from the roof of kitchen of his house. Mashirnama of recovery Exh.7 shows that Chhuri has blade of 6 " .

4. P.W.2 S.H.O. Nazeer Mohammad deposed about the recovery of Chhuri which was produced by the appellant from the roof of hisl kitchen. He recorded F.I.R. and produced the same as Exh.10. After completing investigation he presented challan in the Court. He prepared sketch of the Chhuri separately which is on the back of recovery memo. Exh.7. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these two witnesses to show that they had any motive to falsely implicate appellant. None of these witnesses has enmity with appellant. Appellant on oath has stated that Chhuri was not recovered from his house. Plea of appellant on oath is not proved while case of prosecution stands proved with evidence of two witnesses. Appellant has not produced any other witness in support of his plea.

5. In the circumstances and for the facts and reasons mentioned above I maintain the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal.

6. M.Y.H./Z-47/K Appeal dismissed.