' TAV1D IQBAL, J.-The appellant is convicted under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and sentenced to two years' R. I. Vide judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, dated 17-6-1976. His appeal is being disposed of by this judgment.
2. The allegation against the appellant was that in the course of investigation of the connected murder (Criminal Appeal No, 773 of 1976. And Murder Reference No, 230 of 1976), on his arrest, he led to the recovery of revolver P. 1 along with four empties P. 2/1 to 4 for which he held no licence. These were taken into possession and the memo. In this case is attested by Abdul Jalil and Aulia Khan P.
Ws. Along with Piran Ditta S. I. P. W.
3. Both the recovery witnesses, namely, Abdul Jalil and Aulia Khan are respectable persons. Aulia Khan P. W. Is lambardar of the village. Both of them have supported the prosecution version in respect of these recoveries. No direct enmity had been proved or even suggested in respect of the recovery witnesses and the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason why their testimony should be disbelieved. The appellant pleaded not guilty an A stated that the recovery was planted. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
4. We have already given him the benefit of doubt in the connected murder case and acquitted him, setting aside his conviction and sentence only because the ocular testimony was disbelieved and it was not corroborated by the recoveries. This, however, does not mean that the recoveries in question were not made at the instance of the appellant, because the recovery witnesses in the instant case had no enmity with the appellant and could have not attested a false recovery. Thus, the upshot is that the lire-arm was recovered from the appellant for which he could not produce any licence. Consequently, his conviction under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 was quite proper. He had been awarded a sentence thereunder of two years' R. I., the bulk of which he has already undergone. Consequently, we maintain the conviction but reduce the sentence to what he has already undergone. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.