ABDUL RASHID Versus THE STATE
MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J: --Appellant Abdul Rashid son of Ghulam Sadiq was tried by the learned Judge, Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, on a charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), who vide its judgment dated 31-10-1992 found the appellant guilty on the aforesaid charge and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a term of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000, or in default thereof to suffer further R.I. for 1-1/2 years. The appellant has assailed his conviction by this appeal.
2, The prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 recorded on the basis of complaint Exh.PA., in brief is that during investigation of case F.I.R. No.49/92 registered on 27-4-1992 under sections 353/324, 186/427 and 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar, Ahmadpur Sharqia, a Klashnikov P.1, magazine P.2, 400 live bullets P.3/1-400 were secured from the possession and control of the appellant by P.W.5 Haji Bashir Ahmad, D.S.P. vide memo. Exh.P.B. in presence of P.W.2 Abdul Ghani and P.W.4 Sh. Muhammad Aziz S.I., who also attested the memo. P.W.5 drafted complaint Exh.PA. and sent it to the police station for registration of the case, where formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was recorded by P.W.1 Akhtar Hussain, A.S.I. The appellant could not produce any licence to keep the aforesaid illicit articles and was challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) was framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution examined 5 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Akhtar Hussain, A.S.I. had drafted formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./i on receipt of complaint Exh.PA. P.W.2 Abdul Ghani is.a public witness, in whose presence P.W.5 secured Klashnikov P.1 alongwith a spare magazine P.2 and 400 live bullets P3/1-400 in parachute bag P.4 vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by him and P.W.4 Sh. Muhammad Aziz, S.I. P.W.3 Ch. Muhammad Tufail Wattoo, S.I. had prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and challaned the appellant in the abovesaid case. P.W.4 Sh. Muhammad Aziz, S.I./S.H.O. on 27-4-1992 had joined the investigation and in his presence P.W.5 had secured crime property P.1 to P.3 alongwith a parachute bag P.4 vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by him and P.W.2. P.W.5 Haji Bashir Ahmad, D.S.P. is the complainant who had secured crime property P.1 to P.3 alongwith a bag P.4 from the appellant at the time of his arrest vide memo. Exh.P.B. attested by P.W.2 and P.W.4 as the appellant could not produce any licence of the said articles. He drafted formal complaint Exh.PA. and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case.
4. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against him and stated that he had been falsely involved in the case at the instance of late Malik Allah Yar, Ex-M.PA. with whom he had long-standing enmity and the crime property had been planted upon him. P.W.2 was a police tout and the other P.Ws. were police officials. He was falsely involved. The appellant had not produced evidence in defence and made statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and stated that he did not want to add anything else in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record. It was contended that P.W.2 Abdul Ghani was a police tout and the other P.Ws.4 and 5 were police officials and their statement could not be relied upon. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence that P.W.2 Abdul Ghani is a police tout excepting the oral assertions. P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 have no animus against the appellant and no motive whatsoever to falsely involve him in the present case. The statements of P.Ws.4 and 5 cannot be thrown away or brushed aside on account of their being police officials. P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 have corroborated each other which lead us to the conclusion that recovery in this case did take place from the appellant and it cannot be held to be suspicious. In our view the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This being so, his conviction is justified and is hereby upheld. However, adverting to the question of sentence we do feel that the sentence of the appellant is harsh and excessive. Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is reduced from 7 years to 4 years' R.I. Similarly, the amount of fine is also reduced from RS.30,000 to Rs.10,000 and in default of payment of fine he shall suffer for a further term of 6 months' R.I. With these modifications in the sentences, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant shall be extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
N.H.Q./A-488/L Sentence reduced,