RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.--- Nasarullah Khan, son of Abdul Hamid, aged 19/20 years, was sent up for trial by Police Station Daud Khel, District Mianwali, for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Special Court No.II, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, vide its judgment dated 10-3-1991 convicted and sentenced him to seven years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.20,000, or in default one year R.I., under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. He was also given the benefit of section 352-B, Cr.P.C. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. The prosecution story in brief, as given in F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1, is that the appellant was arrested by Ghulam Ali, Inspector, P.W., on 8-12-1990 in a case registered under section 302, P.P.C. During interrogation, on 21-12-1990 the appellant volunteered to the recovery of a Klashnikov from his house. He led the police party to his house in village Daud Khel and from one of the rooms got recovered Klashnikov P.1 from an iron box, which was secured vide memo Exh.PA. Duly attested by Mehr Khan and Muhammad Iqbal. P.Ws. Could not produce any licence, for the said Klashnikov, therefore, Ghulam Ali, Investigating Officer drafted complaint Exh.P.B. Under the Arms Ordinance and sent it to the Police Station for registration of a case. Uhulam Yasin, A.S.I., P.W.3 on the receipt of complaint Exh.P.B., recorded formal F.I.R. s Exh.P.B./1 on 21-12-1990.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses in all. Ghulam Ali, Inspector, P.W.1 stated that he had arrested the appellant on 8-12-1990 in connection with a murder case and on 21-12-1990 during interrogation he got recovered Klashnikov from his house, which was secured vide memo Exh.P.K., duly attested by Muhammad Iqbal and Mehr Khan, Constables. Since the appellant did not have any licence, therefore, he got a case registered under the Arms Ordinance.
In cross-examination, he refuted the suggestion that he used any coercive methods for effecting the recovery. He admitted that there was Lamberdar and Members of the Town Committee but he did not join them in the recovery proceedings. Mehr Khan, Constable, P.W.2 stated that he was present when the appellant volunteered to get the recovery of Klashnikov P.1 effected from his house. He led the police party to his house and got recovered the gun from an iron box lying in a room of his house. He attested the recovery memo. In cross-examinaiton, he admitted that there were 8,000 to 10,000 persons living in the village. Ghulam Yasin, A.S.I., P.W.3 had recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1. Learned prosecutor gave up Muhammad Iqbal being unnecessary and closed the prosecution case.
The appellant was examined without oath, wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was extremely doubtful. Submitted that the Investigating Officer had violated the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. By not associating two respectable of the locality, therefore, the case was extremely doubtful. Argued that the appellant at the time of commission of the offence was a teenager and the sentence awarded to him was too severe. 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. It is in evidence that the appellant was in custody in connection with a murder case when during interrogation he got recovered the Klashnikov. Ghulam Ali, Inspector, P.W., was cross-examined at lengh. Nothing has come on the record to indicate that he had enmity with the appellant or had a motive to falsely implicate him. It has come on the record that the Klashinkov was not in working condition. In such circumstances, if he had any motive, he could have planted a weapon which was in working condition. The mere fact that nobody from the locality was associated as a recovery witness would not be sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case. In the absence of any motive or ill-will against the appellant, we see no reason why reliance cannot be placed on the recovery witnesses, though they are police officers.
The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has some merit. The appellant at the time of commission of offence was teenager, and we feel the sentence awarded to him is a bit severe, therefore, while dismissing the appeal we reduce the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The appellant shall also be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appeal is dismissed in the terms discussed above.