1. ' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.--- Hafeezullah was sent up for trial by Police Station Saddar, Gujrat, before Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, for an offence under section 13/20/65 of Arms Ordinance. The Special Court vide its judgment, dated 20-1-1992 convicted and sentenced him under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance to four years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000, or in default further R.I. For six months. He was given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As well. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. ' Prosecution story in brief, as given in complaint Exh.P.B. On the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A.
3. Was recorded by Manzoor Hussain, A.S.I. P.W.2, was to the effect that on 3-4-1991 Muhammad Latif, Inspector/S.H.O., P.W.4, was present in village GilIan Wala in connection with investigation of a murder case. He received information that Javed, accused in the said case, was present in village Nat. He rushed to the said village and apprehended the accused, who on interrogation disclosed that he had kept the weapon of offence with Hafeezullah at his Dera. The police party went to the said Dera and found Hafeezullah sitting on a cot with a Klashnikov P.1 and a Thela P.2 was hanging on his shoulder, which contained 20 bullets. Said articles were taken into possession vide memo.
4. Exh.P.C. Since Hafeezullah could not produce any licence, therefore, the present case.
5. ' The prosecution in support of its case produced four witnesses in all. P W.1 Syed Mazhar Ali, Fire- arms Expert, stated that Klashnikov P.1 is automatic weapon. Manzoor Hussain, A.S.I. P.W.2 had recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.PA. On receiving the complaint Exh.P.B. On 3-4-1991. Altaf Hussain, A.S.I., P.W.3 stated that on 3-4-1991 he was present with Muhammad Lateef, Inspector/S.H.O. When they apprehended Javed accused, who disclosed about the Klashnikov. They went to the Dera of Hafeezullah where Hafeezullah was found with Klashnikov P.1 and a Thela containing 20 cartridges.
6. There were ten bullets in the magazine of the Klashnikov. All the bullets P.3/1-30 were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. Which he signed. Muhammad Latif, S.H.O. P.W.4 stated the circumstances under which he arrested Javed accused in a case under section 302, P.P.C. And on his disclosure got recovered Klashnikov P.1 from the appellant alongwith cartridges.
7. ' At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question, he stated that he had an altercation with the Inspector (Muhammad Lateef) P.W.4 before registration of the present case as he had protested against his behaviour with the residents of his Illaqa, therefore, in retaliation he had been involved in the present case. He refused to make his statement on oath in his defence.
8. However, a defence witness was produced. Muhammad Anwar, Inspector, D.W.1 stated that on 8-4- 1991 he was entrusted with the reinvestigation of the case. He examined 8/10 persons by recording their statements and thereafter gave the opinion that the accused was innocent and should be discharged.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Submitted that no independent witness from the locality was associated with the recovery proceedings, therefore, uncorroborated testimony of the eye-witnesses should not be relied upon. Argued that the appellant had been declared innocent after reinvestigation, therefore, the conviction and sentence is bad in law. It was asserted that if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted, the Klashnikov belonged to Javed who has since been acquitted. The contentions were opposed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. As far as the contention that no person from the locality was associated with the recovery proceedings is concerned, it has been considered but we do not find any substance in it. The Investigating Officer in cross-examination stated that he had sent for Lambardar of the locality, who did not associate himself. In these circumstances, if the independent witness from the locality does not join the recovery proceedings, then the police has no choice but to witness the recovery itself by signing the recovery memo. In these circumstances, the argument is repelled.
9. ' The next contention that the appellant was declared innocent, therefore, could not be convicted and benefit of doubt should have been extended to him has been considered, but we do not find any force in it. The appellant produced Muhammad Anwar, Inspector, as D.W.1, who stated that he had recorded the statements of 8/10 witnesses and thereafter came to the conclusion that the appellant was innocent. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not recorded the statements of the defence witnesses but had examined them only. He further stated that none of the defence witnesses had appeared earlier before any of the police officials or the Investigating Officer. He was not even aware of the names of the defence witnesses whom he had allegedly examined. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the reinvestigation conducted by D.W.1 Muhammad Anwar, Inspector was nothing but a mockery, and has rightly been ignored by the learned trial Court. Both the recovery witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could be brought on record to suggest that they had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. In these circumstances, we hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
10. ' However, the question of sentence requires consideration. We feel the sentence of four years' imprisonment is rather on the excessive side, therefore, while dismissing the appeal the sentence of imprisonment of four years is reduced to three years' R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs,5,000, or in default thereof, is, however, maintained. The appellant shall also be entitled to benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
11. Sentence reduced.