' MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J.---Ghulam Rasool son of Lushkari aged 32 years, caste Malik, resident of Mauza Chak Dharwani, Police Station Bangla Ichha, Tehsil Rojhan, District Rajanpur, was convicted and sentenced under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) to suffer 5 years'
R.I. And a fine of Rs,30,000, or in default thereof to undergo 1-1/2 years' R.I. By Mian Nusrat Ullah, learned Judge, Special Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Bahawalpur on 28-5-1992.
2. Briefly the facts of the case as stated by P.W.3 Khuda Bakhsh, S.I./S.H.O., Police Station Bhong, District Rahimyar Khan, are that on 13-3-1990 the appellant while in police custody during interrogation of a case F.I.R. No,56 of 1990 registered under sections 302, 307/329, 109, 148/149, P.P.C.
Police Station Bhong led to the recovery of unlicensed Klashnikov P.1 along with 20 live bullets P.2/1- 20 from a magazine buried in the earth in a courtyard of Mauza Murad Dahar. The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and in consequence thereof he was tried by the learned Special Judge.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced four prosecution witnesses in all. P.W.1 Abdul Ghaffar H.C., P.W.2 Manoon and P.W.3 Malik Khuda Bakhsh, S.I./S.H.O. P.W.1 drafted formal F.I.R.
Exh.PA/1 on the receipt of complaint Exh.PA. P.W.2 Manoon had joined the investigation. The appellant in custody of P.W.3 made a disclosure and led to the recovery of a Klashnikov P.1 and a magazine along with 20 live bullets Exh.P.2/1-20 from the courtyard of Razi, his co-accused in case F.I.R. No,56 of 1990. The appellant took out from underneath the earth the crime property which was secured by P.W.3 vide memo Exh.PB attested by him and P.W.3. P.W.3 Malik Khuda Bakhsh S.I./S.H.O.
Corroborated the statement of P.W.2 and had stated that after the disclosure the appellant led them to the recovery of Klashnikov P.1/magazine with 20 live bullets Exh.P.2/1-20, which he took out after digging the earth. P.W.3 secured P.1, P.2/1-20 vide memo Exh.PB attested by him P.W.3 is the complainant and the Investigating Officer.
4. The appellant while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation leveled against him and took the plea that the case has been falsely prepared against him by the police.
The appellant made statement on oath as D.W.1 and stated that he was innocent and did not want to add anything else to his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. He did not produce evidence in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there was no sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence. The learned State counsel submitted that the crime property was secured at the instance of the appellant, which he had produced after digging out the earth. The place where the crime property was buried i,e, under the earth, was in the exclusive knowledge of 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.W.2 and P.W.3 which proved beyond doubt that the Klashnikov P.1 and the live bullets P.2/1-20 were secured at the instance of the appellant from under the earth which was in his exclusive knowledge. P.W.2 is a public witness and was never involved in any criminal case. He refuted the suggestion that he was a stock witness of the police.
P.W.3 is a public servant and P.Ws.2 and 3 have made their statements in a straightforward manner. They have no motive to falsely involve the appellant in the present case. They have made consistent statements.
7. No doubt P.W.3 has stated during cross-examination that he was a witness in murder case and has appeared as P.W. In two cases only i,e, the murder case and the present matter. But the same is not sufficient to discard his testimony. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence that P.Ws. 2 and 3 have any animus against the appellant and motive to falsely involve him in the present case. The statements made by P.Ws. 2 and 3 are corroborative and the same cannot be brushed aside or thrown away. This being so, in our view the conviction was rightly recorded against the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has prayed for leniency in the matter of sentence.
8. The appellant is in the jail for the last 3 years and 4 months. Accordingly while maintaining his conviction we reduce the sentence of the appellant from 5 years' R.I. To the period already undergone by him in jail as under trial and convict i,e, 3 years and 7-1/2 months. The amount of fine is also reduced from Rs,30,000 to Rs,10,000 and in case of non-payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer 6 months' R.I. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sentence reduced.