SHAUKAT ALI Versus THE STATE
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.‑‑‑ Shaukat Ali alias Shauka son of Hakim Din caste Jat resident of Boundary Thana Narang, District Sheikhupura, was tried by the learned Judge Special Court No.IV, Suppression of Terrorists Activities, Lahore Division, Lahore for keeping an unlicensed` Klashnikov and bullets. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. plus a fine of Rs.30,000 or in default thereof to suffer one year's R.I. on 10‑4‑1991. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal before this Court. It shall be decided through this judgment.
2. The facts of the case are that on 26‑11‑1990 at about 2‑30 a.m. on receipt of secret information, Muhammad Nasim Inspector/S.H.O., Ghulam Shabbir S.I. and others raided premises of Narang More and Mirto Bus Stand and found the appellant Shaukat Ali in possession of Klashnikov P.1 and Magazine P.2 having 20 bullets P.3/1‑20. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh. PB. On complaint Exh.PA of Nasim Inspector, formal F.I.R. Exh.PB/1 was recorded. Muhammad Akram A.S.1. P.W.1, Ghulam Shabbir S.I. P.W.2, and Muhammad Nasim Inspector P.W.3 were produced by the prosecution to prove its case. The appellant denied the allegations levelled against him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He deposed that he was falsely involved in the case. He also produced Safdar Ali D.W.1, Muhammad Siddique D.W.2 and Muhammad Ashraf D.W.3 in support of his defence plea. D.W.1 stated that he had a shop at the Lorry Adda and he did not see the police party to raid the Lorry Adda and that nothing was recovered from the said Adda in his presence. D.W.2 was a headman of village Boundry. He deposed that appellant was not arrested from the village. He further stated that he saw Shaukat appellant while confined in the Police lock up. D.W. 3 stated that there are about 20 shops at the Lorry Adda and the said shops remain open throughout the night because of rush of traffic. He also stated that the police did not raid the Narang Lorry Adda and that no one was arrested from there in his presence.
3. Learned counsel contends with vehemence that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond doubt. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel. A Klashnikov and bullets were recovered from the possession of the appellant in presence of trustworthy witnesses. The recovery of the weapon was proved by Muhammad Nawaz Inspector P.W.3. He was materially supported by Ghulam Shabbir S.I. P.W.2. There are no reasons to disbelieve this reliable evidence. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that the recovery was fake or was planted upon the appellant with some ulterior/ motive. Defence evidence is afterthought and it is not worth reliance. We have been persuaded to believe the prosecution evidence. Thus, the conviction ox the appellant is upheld. However, the sentence awarded to the appellant is harsh on the face of record. It is accordingly reduced to three years' R.I. The amount of fine is also reduced by 50%. Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. shall also be extended to the appellant. With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.
N.H.Q./S‑118/L Sentence reduced.