1994 P Cr (PLP)

2. Vide judgment dated 11th of February, 1992, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty on the aforesaid charge and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and his entire property was ordered to be confiscated. Aggrieved by his conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal which shall be disposed of through this judgment.

3. The prosecution case is that the appellant had been arrested in an other case registered under the Arms Ordinance and during the interrogation, he also disclosed that he was keeping two hand‑grenades in Chhapper of his house in Village Waghian and could lead to their recovery. Accordingly, a raiding party consisting of Ashfaq Ali, A.S.I., P.W.5 and Ghulam Qasim, F.C. P.W.4 proceeded to Village Waghian and the appellant in police custody led the police to his house known as Chhapper and from the roof thereof, he got recovered two hand‑grenades P.1 and P.2 alongwith two detonators P.3 and P.4 wrapped in a cloth P.5 and the same were sealed and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. attested by Ashfaq Ali, P.W.5, Ghulam Oasim, PWA and Faiz Hamid (not produced).

4. A complaint Exh.P.B. with regard to this recovery was drafted by Ashfaq Ali P.W.5 at about 4‑55 p.m. and the same was sent to the police station where formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was scribed by Muti‑ur‑Rehman, Moharrir Head Constable, P.W.2 at 7‑20 p.m.

5. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the statement of Ijaz‑ul‑Haq, Inspector of Explosives who stated that he had examined the hand‑grenades as well as the detonators which were in serviceable condition, explosive substance and dangerous to life and property. He submitted report Exh.PA. To substantiate the case at the trial and to prove the recovery, Ashfaq Ali and Ghulam Qasim also entered the witness‑box and they were cross‑examined at length. The suggestions given were that the appellant was a witness in a murder case and the accused party wanted him to resile from his statement and on the refusal of the appellant to oblige them, it was stated that in collusion with the police, this false case was got registered against the appellant and in consequence thereof, he was arrested.

6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, we have carefully gone through the entire evidence on the record and we have also heard the contentions of both sides.

7. In fact, plausible suggestion as stated above was not given to any of the witnesses. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the charge and stated that he was involved on account of enmity. In defence, a respectable person namely Suba Jan, D.W.1 appeared and stated that such recovery did not take place from the appellant because his antecedents were above board; and that he ran a hotel and was not at all involved in any of the nefarious activities.

8. After anxious consideration we are of the view that as far as the testimony of these eye‑witness‑s are concerned, the same rings true, although, they were cross‑examined at length but nothing material could be elicited from it. No enmity worth the name with the police was proved and not an iota of evidence was brought on record to suggest that involvement of the appellant in this case was because of his refusal to oblige the accused party in the murder case.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that from 17th of October, 1991 to 19th of October, 1991, three cases under the Arms Ordinance were registered against the appellant including the one in hand and the other two relating to the recovery of Khanjar and rifle. It is further submitted that recovery in the three cases should have been made simultaneously and the registration of three separate cases through the three recovery witnesses within a span of one or two days cast doubt upon the prosecution case.

10. After careful consideration we are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel and we repel his contention. In fact, the recovery in this case took place in pursuance of the disclosure made by the appellant as it was stated by Ghulam Qasim, Investigating Officer that with great difficulty such disclosure was made by the appellant.

11. After analysing the entire evidence brought on the record and having gone through the contentions raised, we are of the view that the prosecution brought guilt home to the appellant. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

12. At the end, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the sentence awarded in this case is severe and requires consideration. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, we reduce the sentence of the appellant from 10 years' R.I. to five years' R.I. He shall also be entitled to the benefit of the provision of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. As far as the confiscation of property is concerned, that order will hold the field. N.H.Q./U‑25/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduced.