' MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J.--- Rasool Bakhsh alias Shoobi son of Boota aged 30/35 years, resident of Shahwali, Tehsil and District Rajanpur was convicted and sentenced to suffer 7 years' R.L and a fine of Rs,90,000, Or in default thereof to undergo one year and 8 months' R.I. By Mr. Fakhar-ud-Din Siddiqui, learned Judge, Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur on 18-9-1990.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as stated by P.W.4 Irshad Akhtar Gulab, S.H.O. Police Station Bhong are that on 23-8-1989 at 5-30 p.m. The appellant while in police custody led to the recovery of unlicensed Klashnikov P.1, magazine P.2 containing 40 live bullets P.2/1-40 wrapped in a polythene bag P.3 buried in the earth under a cluster of Keeker trees from near Nawazabad minor.
The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and in consequence thereof he was tried by the learned Special Court.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced 4 P.Ws., P.W.1 Muhammad Anwar, S.I., P.W.2 Muhammad Anwar, P.W.3 Muhammad Tahir and P.W.4 Irshad Akhtar Gulab, S.H.O. P.W.1 drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 on receipt of complaint Exh.P.A. P.W.2 Muhammad Anwar alongwith P.W.3 Muhammad Tahir joined the investigation of the appellant who was in custody of the police and led them to Nawazabad minor towards the southern side near the cluster of Keeker trees. The appellant took out from under the earth a Klashnikov P.1 alongwith its magazine P.2 containing 40 live bullets P.2/1-40 in a plastic bag P.3 which contained P.1 and P.2. P.W.4 had secured P.1 to P.3 vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by him and P.W.3. P.W.3 Muhammad Tahir corroborated the statement of P.W.2 and had stated that after the disclosure the appellant led them near minor Nawazabad and dug the earth near the cluster of Keeker trees and dug out a klashnikov P.1, a magazine P.2 containing 40 rounds P.2/1-40 which were secured by P.W.4 vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by him.
P.W.4 is the complainant and Investigating Officer. He stated that the appellant was with him on personal remand in some other case vide F.I.R. No, 4/88 for offence under sections 302/34, 436/326 and 148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Maachhka. During the interrogation the appellant in presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 made a disclosure and in consequence thereof led to the recovery of unlicensed klashnikov, a magazine P.2 and 40 live rounds P.2/1-40 wrapped in a plastic bag P.3 and the same were secured by P.W.4 vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by P.Ws.2 and 3. Since the appellant could not produce any licence, P.W.4 drafted the complaint Exh.PA. And sent the same to the police station where P.W.1 on its basis correctly recorded the F.I.R. Exh.PA./1.
4. The appellant while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations levelled against him and took the plea that the case had been falsely created against him by the police.
The appellant made statement on oath as D.W.1 and stated that he was innocent and was involved in the present case by the S.H.O. He was produced by one Sher Ali Mazari. The S.H.O. Demanded 50,000 Rupees from him and he did not pay money and he was involved.
5. The appellant did not produce any other evidence in defence. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that there was absolutely no sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. The learned State counsel submitted that the Klashnikov and the ammunition was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the place which was in his exclusive knowledge. The crime property was buried under the earth below cluster of Keeker trees, which was dug out and produced by the appellant.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record with care. We believe the statements made by P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 which proved beyond doubt that the klashnikov P.1, magazine P.2 containing 40 live bullets P.2/1-40 were recovered at the instance of the appellant from the earth below the cluster of trees which was in his exclusive knowledge. P.Ws.2 and 3 are public witnesses and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve their testimony. They had made consistent statements.
7. No doubt P.W.2 has stated during cross-examination that he was complainant in a theft case against the appellant which had taken place in his village, but that is not sufficient to discard his testimony. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence that P.Ws.2 and 3 had animus against the appellant and motive to falsely involve him in the present case. The statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 are also corroborated by the statement of P.W.4 S.H.O. Who had no malice against the appellant and his statement cannot be brushed aside or thrown away only of his being a police officer. This being so, in our view the conviction was rightly recorded against the appellant. We have been persuaded to hold that the sentence awarded to the appellant is harsh and severe.
Accordingly, while maintaining his conviction we reduce the sentence of the appellant from 7 years to 3 years. He will also be given benefit of section 382-A, Cr.P.C. The amount of fine is also reduced to Rs,5,000 and in case of non-payment of fine the appellant shall suffer 6 months' R.I. With this modification in the sentence there is no substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.
Sentence reduced.