MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus THE STATE Hafiz Ghulam Bari , -
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.‑ ‑‑ This appeal has been filed through jail by the appellant assailing the judgment, dated 23‑7‑1990 passed by the learned Judge presiding over the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, Sargodha, whereby, the appellant was tried on the charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years, and to pay a fine of Rs. ten thousand or in default thereof, to further undergo R.I. for one year. Benefit under section 382(B), Cr.P.C. was also given to the appellant.
2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, we have carefully gone through the evidence on record, and we have also heard the various contentions raised by the learned counsel at length. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29 th of April, 1990 at about 8‑00 a.m. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Sub‑Inspector P.W.1 received information that a person was present with Klashnikov near Jheel Chashma Barrage. After the receipt of such information, P.W.1 formed a raiding party consisting of himself, Ghulam Qadir A.S.I., Darvesh Khan H.C. and three constables reached the aforesaid Jheel in a private car, and found the appellant with a Klashnikov hanging on his left shoulder. The Klashnikov P.1 alongwith 101 live cartridges P.3/1‑101 was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A. The appellant could not produce any licence, and therefore, P.W.1 Sub‑Inspector Muhammad Aslam Khan wrote a complaint Exh.P.B., and sent the same to the police station for the registration of the case, where, the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B/1 was registered by Muhammad Rohtas, P.W.3.
3. In order to prove its case against the appellant, the prosecution placed reliance upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. All these witnesses unanimously stated that in a private car, they had reached Jheel Chashma Barrage and found the appellant present there alongwith a Klashnikov which was taken into possession alongwith live, cartridges. During the trial, the appellant did not engage any counsel, and himself cross‑examined the witnesses, and both in cross‑examination as well as before this Court, the only point which has, been argued is that no witness from the public was cited, and even the driver of the car which had taken the police party to the Jheel Chashma Barrage had not been produced, therefore, the non‑production o` these witnesses was fatal to the prosecution, as the statements of the police officials could not be corroborated without their evidence.
4. Under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant stated that he was falsely involved in the case, and the arms and ammunition .was planted on him. However, he did not produce any defence, and also declined to make statement under section 3410(2), Cr.P.C. After examination of the entire case, wee are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case, and the guilt has been brought home to the appellant, because there is nothing on record to show that out of animus, the police had implicated the appellant in this case, or to show that this case has been manoeuvred and fabricated against the appellant. Hence, we do not find any substance in this appeal, and the same is hereby rejected. Since, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case, therefore, this appeal must fail, and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the quest in of sentence in this case needs interference, as the same is severe. Accordingly, we reduce the sentence from seven years to three years' R.I. Similarly, sentence of fine is also reduced from ten thousand to two thousand only, or in default thereof to suffer six months instead of one year's R.I. He will also be entitled to the benefit of section 382(B), Cr.P.C. With these observations this appeal is dismissed.
N.H.Q./M‑269/L
Sentence reduced.