' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.--- Adam Khan son of Fateh Muhammad, caste Pathan, resident of Wandha Shahoo Khellanwala Dakhali Watta Khel, Police Station Saddar Mianwali, District Mianwali, was convicted and sentenced to suffer seven years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof to undergo two years' R.I. By the learned Judge Special Court No,2 (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Sargodha Division, Sargodha, on 17-7-1991, for possessing an unlicensed Klashnikov.
2. Shortly mentioned, the facts are that on 31-12-1989 at about 1-00 p.m., the appellant led to the recovery of an unlicensed Klashnikov P.1, two spare Magazines P.2 and P.3 and 133 live cartridges P.4/1-133 from his house. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and in consequence thereof he was tried by the learned Special Court.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Muhammad Anwar S.I. (P.W.1), Ghulam Habib F.C. (P.W.2) and Sultan Ahmad Moharrar/H.C. (P.W.3).
' Sultan Ahmad Moharrar/H.C. (P.W.3) drafted formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.B./1) on 31-12-1989 on receipt of the complaint (Exh.P.B.) from Muhammad Anwar S.I.
' Muhammad Anwar S.I. (P.W.1) investigated the case. He deposed that the appellant was with him on physical remand in a murder case vide F.I.R. No,89/82 having been registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. During the interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure that he could lead the police to the recovery of a Klashnikov and in consequence the aforesaid weapon and ammunition were got recovered by him. Bahram Khan H.C. Ghulam Habib F.C. Witnessed the recovery and attested the recovery memo. (Exh.PA.). Ghulam Habib F.C. Was produced as P.W.3, while Bahram Khan was given up.
' The appellant while making a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation levelled against him and took the plea that he was falsely implicated in the case. He took the plea that the complainant of murder case vide F.I.R. No,89/92 had given cash to Muhammad Anwar S.I. And after purchasing Klashnikov from village Shahbaz Khel, the Police Officer planted it on him. He stated that his house was situated in the Abadi of village Wandha Shahoo Khelanwala where his real sister resided and that the house from where the alleged recovery was shown did not belong to him nor he ever resided therein.
4. Learned counsel contends that there was absolutely no sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime inasmuch as it was mandatory on the prosecution to have joined public witnesses when the recovery was effected. The learned State counsel submits that a Klashnikov and sufficient amount of ammunition were recovered at the instance of the appellant from his residential house. He, therefore, maintains that the prosecution evidence was worth reliance.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. We have also read the whole record with care. We do believe the evidence deposed by Ghulam Habib F.C. (P.W.3) and Muhammad Anwar S.I. (P.W.1) which proved beyond doubt that a Klashnikov P.2, two magazines P.2 and P.3 and 133 live cartridges P.4/1-133 were recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house on his pointedness. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses because every person including the police officials are competent witnesses unless it is shown that they are interested or inimical. No such enmity or mala fide was shown by the defence on the part of the police to falsely implicate the appellant in the commission of the crime. This being so, in our view, conviction was rightly recorded against the appellant. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we have been persuaded to hold that the sentence awarded to the appellant is definitely harsh and excessive. Accordingly, while maintaining his conviction, we reduce the sentence of the appellant from seven years to there years. He will also be given the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The amount of fine is also reduced to Rs,10,000 (Rupees ten thousand). In case of non-payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer six months' R.I.
With this modification in the sentence, there is no substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. Sentence reduced.