1. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- Vide F.I.R. No.124, dated 27th of June, 1990, registered at Police Station Sadar Mianwali, a case against the appellant and seven others was registered under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. The complainant in the said F.I.R. Stated that the appellant armed with a klashnikov alongwith other co-accused armed with lethal weapons had arrived at Wandah Gorangi Khellanwala, Police Station Sadar Mianwali in a red Datsun car and had fired at Haji Muhammad Abdullah, Muhammad Hayat, Haji Saif Ullah, Haji Muhammad Gul, Mumtaz Khan, Mushtaq Khan, Umar Hayat Khan, Asmat Ullah Khan and Muhammad Aslam while they were sitting on the platform in front of Baithak of Haji Saif Ullah.
2. In course of the investigation of this case, only appellant and the co--accused Mehr Khan were found involved in this case while rest of the co--accused were declared innocent and were got discharged and thus, challan against the appellant was submitted in Court.
3. In course of the investigation of the case, under section 307/34, P.P.C., on interrogation, the appellant disclosed that he could lead the police to get recovered klashnikov and, therefore, on 19th of August, 1990, appellant while in custody, led the police party consisting of Khalid Mehmood, S.H.O. P.W.1. Faqir Muhammad and Hashmat Ali A.S.Is. Alongwith other police constables, to his own house and pointed out a box lying in his residential room and from the aforesaid box, klashnikov P.1 alongwith 25 live cartridges P.2/1-25 were recovered and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A.
4. Attested by Faqir Muhammad, Hashmat Ali, A.S.Is. And the S.H.O. Khalid Mehmood, P.Ws. On the basis of this recovery, a complaint was sent to the police station where formal F.I.R. Was drawn and a case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance was also registered against the appellant.
5. Challan in both the cases i.e. Under section 307/34, P.P.C. And under the Arms Ordinance was submitted in the Court of Special Judge constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act at Sargodha.
6. As far as the case under section 307/34, P.P.C. Is concerned, appellant was acquitted of the charge.
7. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment and the learned Judge extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant as well as his co-accused on the ground that so many persons armed with such lethal weapons had only caused injuries to two persons and furthermore, there were no apparent signs of firing near the place of occurrence; although, one of the witnesses admitted that the wall of Haji Saif Ullah had bullet marks, which were shown to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer in the witness-box denied to have seen any such marks.
8. In this view of the matter, considering the prosecution case as improbable, the appellant was acquitted.
9. However, in the case registered under the Arms Ordinance, the recovery stood proved through the evidence of Khalid Mehmood, S.H.O. (P.W.1) and Faqir Muhammad A.S.I. (P.W.2) and thus the learned Judge believing the recovery convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo one year's R.I. Vide judgment, dated 13-11-1990. Aggrieved by his conviction, the present appeal has been filed which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
10. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record is discrepant inasmuch as, one of the witnesses stated that the appellant was interrogated in the courtyard of the police station while according to the Investigating Officer, he had interrogated the appellant in his own room. We are afraid, this hardly constitutes material discrepancy so as to go to the root of the case and, therefore, we ignore this discrepancy.
11. It was next contended that since the appellant had been acquitted on the principal charge under section 307, P.P.C. Therefore, as a necessary consequence, the appellant also deserves the acquittal in this case. The contention again has no force because both cases are to be tried separately and in this case, in fact, the offence falls within the purview of the Arms Ordinance and has to be tried and decided on its own merits and on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution on the record.
12. We further notice that in his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C., in reply to a question, as to why the case has been made against him, the appellant stated that on account of enmity with Khalid Mahmood, S.I. (P.W.1) case has been fabricated and the klashnikov was given to the S.I. By one Amir Abdullah which has been planted on him. The appellant further submitted that his cousin was falsely involved by Khalid Mehmood, S.I. And thus, he made complaint to the higher police authorities against the S.I. And consequently, the S.H.O. Was suspended and with a view to wreak vengeance, the appellant has been falsely implicated. We have considered this aspect of the case.
13. It is merely, a bald assertion without any material to support it. Such an assertion is not sufficient to consider the prosecution case doubtful or mala fide.
14. As far as the competency of the police officials as witnesses is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant frankly concedes that they are competent witnesses. The evidence of the police witnesses cannot be easily brushed aside unless it is shown that the investigation was dishonest or conducted against the appellant with mala fides.
15. Unfortunately, there is nothing on the record to hold that the case is false or has been registered due to enmity. We have very minutely gone through the evidence as well as the judgment and after careful consideration, we hold that the prosecution has brought guilt home to the appellant.
16. However, the quantum of sentence requires interference because we feel that the sentence is harsh. Accordingly we reduce the sentence of seven years to three years and similarly we also reduce the amount of fine to Rs.2,000 or in default thereof, the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for a term of six months. He shall also be given benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.