' SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J.--- Inayatullah appellant herein was tried under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, by the Presiding Officer, Special Court No,11, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Sargodha Division, Sargodha. He was convicted thereunder and vide judgment, dated 6-11-1990, was sentenced to seven years' R.I. Plus fine of Rs,10,000 or in default one year's R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him. The convict has appealed.
2. The prosecution case is that on 14-9-1990, Abdul Razzaq, S.-I./S.H.O. Police Station Mochh (P.W.1) alongwith Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.-I. (P.W.2), Muhammad Iqbal A.S.-I. (given up witness) and some other Police Constables, was present in village Sultanwala Gharbi for the investigation of case F.I.R.
No,200 of 1990, under section 336, P.P.C. And for the arrest of the appellant in case F.I.R. No,199 of 1990, under section 307/365, P.P.C. It is alleged that on seeing the police party, the appellant started firing in the air with a klashnikov and ran towards northern side. He was surrounded by the police party and was apprehended , when he was changing the magazine of his klashnikov. The S.- I./S.H.O. Abdul Razzaq took into possession the klashnikov P.1 and magazine P.2, containing ten live cartridges P.3/1-10 vide recovery memo. Exh.P.A., which was attested by Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. (P.W.1)
Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.-I. (P.W.2) and Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.-I. (not produced). The appellant could not produce its licence. Accordingly he was arrested.
' Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. P.W.1 drafted complaint Exh.P.B. And sent the same to the police station. Fateh Muhammad H.C. (P.W.3) recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1. The S.-I. Recovered five empties of klashnikov P.4/1-5 from the place where the appellant had fired and ten empties of .303 rifle, P.5/1- 10 from the place from where the police party had fired. After completion of investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court.
3. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations, professed innocence and produced in defense applications, Exhs.D.A., D.B. And D.C. Submitted against Abdul Razzaq, S.-I.
4. The prosecution in support of its Case examined Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. (P.W.1), Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.-I. (P.W.2). They supported the recovery of klashnikov and the magazine along with ten live cartridges. Another recovery witness Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.-I. Was given up as being unnecessary.
Fateh Muhammad, Head Constable P.W.3 recorded the formal F.I.R.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that no public witness was associated while making the recovery from the appellant which has caused prejudice to the appellant especially in view of the background of enmity between the appellant and Abdul Razzaq, S.-I.
(P.W.1). Learned counsel also pointed out certain discrepancies between the evidence of Abdul Razzaq P.W.1 and Muhammad Nawaz P.W.2, regarding the place of recovery and the manner in which the recovery memo. Was prepared by Abdul Razzaq, S.-I. He pointed out that according to Abdul Razzaq P.W.1 the recovery memo. Was prepared in the police van, which was standing there, whereas according to Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.-I. P.W.2, the appellant was taken to the police van where the S.-I. Prepared the recovery memo.; hence this discrepancy is of material nature which adversely affects the credibility of the prosecution case as a whole thus the prosecution case is not free from doubt and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment for the reasons mentioned therein.
7. We have examined the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties minutely. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant has got criminal disposition as he was involved in 3/4 criminal cases prior to the institution of the present case. There is no background of enmity proved on the record, except three applications Exhs.D.A., D.B. And D.C. The learned trial Judge rightly obigrved that these applications are not sufficient per se to establish that the S.H.O. Had that much acrimony or enmity with the appellant which would actuate him to falsely involve him in the present case. Klashnikov along with magazine and crime empties have been recovered from the appellant and normally no Police Officer would plant such an expensive weapon on a person in order to take revenge, regarding the transfer of criminal investigation from him, as per the assertion of the appellant. These circumstances and the manner in which the Kalashnikov was recovered from the appellant suggest that it was not possible for the police to associate any public witness with the recovery, as the police party had gone to the spot on the report that the appellant who is an absconder, is indiscriminately firing with his Kalashnikov. In the circumstances the recovery of Kalashnikov from the appellant is not open to any serious objection. We find no reason to differ with the finding of the trial Judge, so we maintain the conviction of the appellant.
8. In the end learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the sentence imposed on the appellant is harsh and needs consideration. We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect of the case. We find that the sentence awarded to the appellant in the given circumstances is bit harsh and needs reduction. We, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, reduce his sentence from seven years' R.I. To three years' R.I. And also reduce the sentence of fine from Rs,10,000 to Rs,2,000 or in default, he shall undergo four months' R.I. The appellant shall also be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. With the above modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.