1995 PLP 1267 (MLD)

Zahid Farani Sheikh for the State. Date of hearing: 5th October, 1994. RANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD, J.‑‑‑Tahir alias Sain Lodhi, appellant was in custody in connection with a murder case registered with Police Station, Saddar Daska for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. On 13‑2 1992 during the investigation he led the police party to his house and got recovered klashnikov Exh.Pl with magazine Exhs.P2 and 20 bullets Exh.P3/1 20 which were secured vide memo. Exh. PA duly attested by the witnesses. Since Tahir, appellant, could not produce any licence, therefore, a case was registered and the challan was submitted by the Special Court constituted for Suppression of Terrorists Activities, Gujranwala.

2. The learned Court at the conclusion of the trial, vide this judgment dated 2‑11‑1992 convicted and sentenced him under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default, he shall further undergo R.I. for six months. The convict has appealed, This judgment shall dispose of the same.

3. The prosecution in support of its case had produced four witnesses in all. Muhammad Hanif Naeem Fire Arms Expert (P.W.1) after examination declared klashnikov Exh.P1 as automatic rifle. Muhammad Yousaf (P.W.3) had recorded the formal F.I.R. on the basis of complaint Exh. PB. Niaz Ahmed, Head Constable (P.W.2) stated that in his presence the appellant Sain led to the recovery of gun and a revolver with magazines from his house. He had signed the memo. Exh. PA by virtue of which klashnikov Exh.P1, Magazine Exhs.P2 and 20 bullets Exh.P3/1‑20 were secured. Muhammad Arif, S.I. (P.W.4) stated that on 13‑2‑1992 he interrogated the accused Tahir in connection with a murder case during which he was voluntarily got recovered klashnikov with magazine and bullets which were secured vide memo. Exh. PA. Both the witnesses were cross‑examined at length. Nothing was brought on the record to suggest that the appellant was not in their custody at the time of recovery of klashnikov or recovery was not effected. Throughout the trend of cross‑examination revealed that there was neither any enmity nor motive on the part of witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. The manner in which they have withstood the cross‑examination leaves no room for doubt that they are truthful witnesses and can safely be relied upon. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that some respectables of the locality should have been associated has been considered but we did not find much force in it. The appellant was already in custody and during interrogation he led the police party to his house and got recovered klashnikov Exh.P

1. It is no body's case that the police had raided the house or had come there for the purpose of carrying out search. Even otherwise non‑association of witnesses from the, public would not be fatal in the circumstances of the present case. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence is too severe requires further consideration. Therefore while holding that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt we dismiss the appeal but reduce the sentence from five years' R.I. to three years' R.I. The sentence of fine shall, however, be maintained. H.B.T./T‑99/L Order accordingly.