MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal No.430 of 1990 arises from the judgment of Presiding Officer, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Lahore, whereby he, on 29-5- 1990 convicted Muhammad Asif alias Pappu obviously under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to six years' R.I. And fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof six months'. R.I.
2. The charge against the appellant was of keeping unlicensed Klashnikov P.1 and 63 bullets P.2/1- 63 on 24-4-1990. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses. Muhammad Nahid Khan, S.I., P.W.1, had prepared the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B. On the basis of complaint Exh.P.A. Muhammad Ilyas, A.S.I., P.W.2, stated that he alongwith Muhammad Awais, S.I./S.H.O. And other police officials were holding Nakabandi on 24-4-1990 at 7-00 p.m. The appellant came there from Talawana village. On seeing the police party, he tried to run away but was apprehended. On his search one Klashnikov P.1, fitted with a magazine P.2, containing 30 bullets P.3/1-30 and 50 bullets P.4/1-50, were recovered vide memo. Exh.P.C. He had no licence to keep the Klashnikov and the bullets with him. Muhammad Awais, S.I. Supported the statement made by Muhammad Ilyas, P.W.2.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the recovery of Klashnikov etc. From him. He raised the plea of false implication. 8 He stated that 3/4 days prior to Eid he was going to meet his sister when he was hauled-up by the police and involved in this case. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. Believing the prosecution case, and evidence produced by it and disbelieving the plea of false implication raised by the appellant, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as no independent witness was produced to support the police officials and that the statements of the recovery witnesses suffer from contradictions and discrepancies. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
7. We have carefully attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have reviewed the evidence produced by the prosecution, statement made by the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. We do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned c6unsel for the appellant. We find that Muhammad Ilyas P.W.2 and Muhammad Idrees P.W.3 are quite independent witnesses. They had no enmity to involve the appellant falsely in the case or to plant valuable Klashnikov on him. They have faced the test of cross-examination successfully. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any material contradiction, major discrepancy or dishonest improvement in their statements. The appellant did not care to rebut the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. For these reasons, we are convinced that no exception can be taken to the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial Court.
8. This brings us to the question of sentence. The appellant is not a previous convict. The sentence of six years is really harsh, so it is reduced to three years' R.I. The fine of Rs.10,000 is also reduced to 5,000 or in default thereof three months' R.I. With this reduction in sentence, the appeal is dismissed.
S.A./M-3181/L