RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.--- Naeem Akhtar alias Nanna, son of Bashir Ahmad was tried by Judge, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, for an offence under section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 29-8- 199(1 convicted and sentenced him to ten years' R.I. It was further directed that his entire property shall stand confiscated to the State. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, given to him.
The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as given in complaint Exh. P.A. Was that on 11-7-1988 at 3-45 p.m.
N6ammad Ashraf, Inspector/S.H.O. Was chasing Naeem Akhtar, appellant, who had escaped and was proclaimed offender in a murder case. While looking for him, alongwith other police officials, he was informed that two suspicious persons were hiding in a maize crop field. On the receipt of this information the maize crop was searched. Naeem Akhtar was found and apprehended. From his personal search, one hand-grenade alongwith fuse was recovered from the Dub of his Shalwar.
Since he could not produce any licence, therefore, the present case was got registered.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses in all. P.W.1 Irshad Ahmad, Constable had registered formal F.I.R. Exh. P.B. On the receipt of complaint Exh. P.A. P.W.2 Khalid Pervaiz, LHC had joined the investigation of the case and in his presence grenade P.1, bearing No.M.36144 was recovered from the appellant alongwith fuse P.2 which was secured vide memo.
Exh. P.C., which he signed. Muhammad Ashraf, Inspector, P.W.3 had corroborated the version given by him in the complaint.
At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He asserted that he had been involved in the case because of enmity of the police. The appellant also produced defence witness Raja Kamran Afzal, who stated that about two years earlier parents of appellant Naeem Akhtar came to him alongwith the appellant, and he sent his worker with the appellant to produce him before the police station concerned. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the date or the month when he had sent his worker with the appellant to the police station. C.W.1 Ghulam Abbas, A.S.I. Stated that Raja Kamran Afzal, Ex-M.P.A. Was not available as he had gone to his constituency in connection with general elections.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was extremely doubtful. Submitted that the prosecution had not produced any independent witness.
Argued that the prosecution did not produce any expert from the Explosives Department to indicate that the grende recovered at the instance of the appellant was in working order. Lastly, it was submitted that the sentence of confiscation of the entire property of the appellant was too severe and so was the sentence of imprisonment. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The prosecution has proved its case from the statement of Khalid Pervaiz and Muhammad Ashraf.
P.Ws.2 and 3, respectively. Both of them have given a detailed account of the incident the way it transpired. They were cross---examined at length but nothing could be brought on the record to indicate that they had any enmity with the appellant or motive for his false involvement. The statements of the witnesses inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon. As far as the defence version is concerned, it cannot advance the case of the appellant in any manner. Raja Kamran Afzal, Ex-M.P.A. Was not even aware when he had sent his worker with the appellant to the police station. Neither the date nor the month could be given by the witness. From what has been discussed above, we are convinced that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt.
However, last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant need consideration. We feel the sentence of imprisonment of ten years and he confiscation of his entire property is a bit severe.
Therefore, while dismissing the appeal we reduce the sentence of imprisonment of ten years to seven years' R.I. The confiscation of the entire property is set aside, instead he shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default one year's R.I. He shall be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appeal is dismissed in the terms stated above.