' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Abdus Samad son of Rafiq Ahmad, aged about 17-1/2 years was sent up for trial by Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore for an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Special Court (constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Special Courts Act, 1975, vide its judgment dated 23-5-1992 convicted him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, and sentenced him to five years' R.I with a fine of rS,50,000 or in default one year R.I. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. Prosecution story in brief, as narrated in complaint Exh. PA, was to the effect that Haq Nawaz, Inspector/S.H.O. on 19-4-1989 at 4-30 p.m., along with other police officials was present near Sir Syed Hall Engineering University. He saw a person, on apprehension whose name was learnt as Abdul Samad, running from there while holding a sten gun .30 bore with a magazine which contained six bullets. The same was taken into possession. Said Abdus Samad could not produce any licence for the gun, therefore, case under the Arms Ordinance was registered against him. Said Haq Nawaz, Inspector S.H.O. (P.W.3) recovered the sten gun P.1 along with magazine P.2 and six bullets P.3/1-6 from the appellant vide memo Exh. PC. He got the recovery memo. attested from Abdul Khaliq, S.I., and Abdul Aziz Ahmad, S.I. He sent complaint Exh. PA to Police Station Mughalpura, Lahore, for registration of a case. Site-plan Exh. PD was prepared by him. On completion of the investigation he challaned the appellant.
3. Prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses in all. Muhammad Talib, A.S.I., P.W.1 had recorded formal F.I.R. Exh. PB on 19-4-1989 on the basis of complaint Exh. PA received by him.
P.W.2 Aziz Ahmad, S.I. was member of the police party which apprehended the appellant on 19-4- 1989 and recovered gun P.1 along with magazine P.2 and bullets P.3/1-6. He had also signed the recovery memo. Exh. PC. Haq Nawaz, Inspector, P.W.3 had investigated the case and challaned the appellant.
' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath, wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question, he stated that he was not a student of the Engineering University. On the day of occurrence, he alongwith his friend Shahraz was going to the house of his relative Shaukat Kashmiri. A short-cut passed through the Engineering University leading to the house of said Shaukat Kashmiri, which path they took. On the way they saw a police contingent chasing students. He along with his companion also ran. His friend Shahraz managed to escape but he was apprehended and the gun was planted on him, which had been thrown by some students.
' The appellant also produced two witnesses in his defence. D.W.1 Shaukat Kashmiri stated that about three years back, in the month of Ramdan, one Shahraz came to his house and informed that Abdus Samad had been apprehended by the Police while coming to his house through the Engineering University. The witness along with others went to the Police Station, where he was informed by the Inspector that after investigation if Abdus Samad was found innocent he would be let off. Sharaz Ahmad Qureshi, D.W.2 stated that at the relevant time and date he was present with the appellant. While passing through the Engineering University, they saw police running after the students. The witness asked his companion to run away, who did not agree to it saying that they had nothing to do with the incident. Later, however, the witness started running away and his companion Abdus Samad was apprehended. This happened while they were going to the house of Shaukat Kashmiri.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Submitted that there was discrepancy between the statements of the witnesses as P.W.2 stated that the place from where the appellant was apprehended, was not a thoroughfare, whereas P.W.3 stated otherwise. Contended that admittedly the appellant was apprehended from a thoroughfare, yet nobody from public was associated in witnessing the recovery of gun. Asserted that the prosecution story became highly doubtful as the petitioner was not a student of the Engineering University and at the time of occurrence he was only 17 years and four months of age. Stated that the appellant was involved in the occurrence simply for the reason that he happened to be present at the spot, where some unknown student had thrown the Gun P1, which was picked up by the police.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The time and date of the occurrence is not disputed. The appellant's presence at the spot is also not challenged. The witnesses, when cross-examined, were not even suggested any enmity of the police with the appellant or motive for his false involvement. It is difficult to imagine that the police would plant the sten gun on a boy of 17 years of age, which, according to the defence, was thrown by some other student. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no witness from the public was associated is concerned, we have considered it but do not find any substance in it. It was admitted by the defence that at the relevant time and date, firing between two groups of students was going on, and in such circumstances, it is not possible for public in general to be present there. Even otherwise, the police officials in such like cases are competent witnesses and can be relied upon if their statements inspire confidence. After going through the evidence of the witnesses, we feel it inspires confidence and can safely be relied upon. We have considered the defence evidence and come to the conclusion that it does not help the appellant.
D.W.1 Shaukat Kashmiri was not present at the spot, therefore, need not be discussed. D.W.2 ran away from the spot, therefore, could not know what transpired afterwards. For these reasons, no reliance on D.Ws. can be placed.
' This, however, takes us to the question of quantum of sentence. We have noticed that the appellant at the time of occurrence was 17 years of age. We have also noticed that the conviction and sentence is rather severe. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment from five years to three years' R.I. The sentence of fine is also reduced from rS,50,000 to rS,10,000. The sentence in case of default of payment of fine is, however, maintained. The appeal is dismissed in these terms.