' The prosecution story in brief is that on 30-12-2002 petitioner Muhammad Younis Khan son of Gul Muhammad, resident of Mohallah Haqdad Abad, Lakki Marwat, after committing murder of one Ghulam Muhammad, was fleeing away from the spot who was chased by S.H.O. Taimur Shah Police Station, Lakki along with other police contingent headed by Aslam Khan, D.S.P., Lakki and apprehended at Lakki Tajazai Road near Garaban Bridge. The petitioner was found in possession of one .30 bore pistol with fixed charger having four rounds of the same bore. The pistol was taken into possession and sealed into a parcel vide recovery memo. Exh.P.W.2/1 witnessed by F.C.
Shahnawaz Khan P.W. And F.C. Asmatullah (not produced). The petitioner was arrested and a case was registered against him under section 13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 on the basis of Murasila. The Murasila was despatched to Police Station Lakki where it was incorporated in F.I.R.
No,504 at 10-15 hours by A.S.-1. Afsar Khan (P.W.I).
2. The petitioner stood trial he lore learned Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate exercising powers under section 30, Cr.P.C., Lakki Marwat. On conclusion of the trial, vide judgment, dated 12-5-2004, the petitioner was convicted under section 13 of the Act (ibid) and sentenced to two years' R.I. And fine of Rs,5,000 or in default whereof, to undergo further five months S.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat which was dismissed by order, dated 26-5-2004. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant criminal revision under section 435 read with section 439, Cr.P.C. Challenging his conviction and sentence.
3. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Marwat, Advocate for the petitioner contended inter alia, that except the bare allegations in the F.I.R., there is nothing in evidence which could connect the petitioner with the guilt; that the report has been recorded after inordinate delay; that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses; that defence version has been ignored without any justifiable reason; that the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. Have not been complied with and that section 18(4) of Police Order, 2002, has been seriously violated which has resulted in manifest injustice. In this regard, reliance was placed on State through Advocate-General, Sindh v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408, Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1996 SCM R 1553, Imran-ud-Din v. The State 2004 YLR 1051 (Peshawar) and Sajjan v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1399 (Karachi).
4. Appearing on behalf of the State, Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai, and Advocate supported the impugned judgment on merits but conceded that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is harsh in the circumstances of the case and warrants interference of this Court.
5. The prosecution in order to prove apprehension of the petitioner and recovery of a pistol of .30 bore from his possession has produced two witnesses namely S.H.O. Taimur Shah (P.W.2) and F.C.
Shah Sawar Khan (P.W.3). Both of them are unanimous on all the material points. Their testimony is unimpeachable and invokes confidence about its truthfulness. The prosecution has stood on its own legs and has produced sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence. No material discrepancy or contradiction is found in the statements of these witnesses. Rather they are consistent regarding the time and place of recovery and the manner in which it has been effected. Though these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be gained by the defence to discard their statements. There is no animus or mala fides, the investigation has been straight and honest and no substantial defect or infirmity has been pointed out in the evidence through cross-examination of the witnesses. There is no delay in recording the F.I.R. Affecting the prosecution case. The non-association of the witness from the public alone is not sufficient to affect the prosecution case as it is tendency that people from public are reluctant to become witnesses. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are not tenable.
6. It is an accepted principle of law that when an accused at a criminal trial takes a specific plea, the onus invariably shifts and he is required to produce evidence and prove his innocence or at least his plea should be supported by the attending circumstances and it should not be unfounded altogether. In the instant case, the plea taken by the petitioner is without foundation and has not been satisfactorily proved.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, finding no merit in this revision, I dismiss the same. However, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the sentence already undergone by him. The sentence of fine and punishment in default thereof shall, however, remain intact.