1992 PLP 2214 (MLD)

SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.‑‑Appellant Inayat Ullah in this case was tried on the , charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. Vide judgment dated 8th of June, 1991, the appellant was found guilty and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years. Aggrieved by his conviction the appellant has preferred this appeal which shall be disposed of through this judgment. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20th of December, 1990 at about 9 p.m. Ghulam Muhammad, A.S.I. (P.W.4)' Factory Area received information that the appellant/a proclaimed offender was present in the graveyard. On the receipt of this information Ghulam Muhammad ASl formed a raiding party consisted of himself, Rashid Ahmad, Basharat Shafqat, Muhammad Saleem, Ahmad Khan, Ijaz Ahmad, Muhammad Siddique and Mukhtar Ahmad Constables alongw7th Haji Muhammad Ali: The raiding party r ached the graveyard and found the appellant concealed there. The appellant, on the sight of the police party, ran away from the graveyard but was overpowered and from his possession sten gun P.1 along with a magazine containing 6 bullets P.2/1‑6 were recovered and the same were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.P.B. attested by Haji Muhammad Ali P.W.2 and Mukhtar Ahmad, P.W.3 Constable. A complaint was sent to the Police Station whereupon the formal FIR was drawn at the Police Station. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the statement of Haji Muhammad Ali, P.W.2, Mukhtar Ahmad, Constable, P.W.3 and Ghulam Muhammad A.S.I: (P.W.4). The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the charge and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he also made statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He also produced two witnesses in his defence; one of the witnesses namely DW 1 Mukhtar Ahmad who is a Rickshaw Driver, states that on the fateful day at about 3‑30 p.m. he alongwith the appellant and others were playing card in the house of one Gogi when they were raided and the police party caught hold of the appellant and others and took them, to the police station and every body was let off except the appellant and subsequent thereto, a false case was fabricated against the appellant. DW 2 Muhammad Yunus Butt is also a resident of the area and he also states that on the receipt of the information that the appellant and others had been caught red‑handed he reached the Police Station but the police let off others except the appellant who was involved falsely in this case. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, we have carefully perused the entire record and we have also heard the various contentions raised by both sides. As far as Haji Muhammad Ali, P.W. 2 is concerned, he is definitely a stock‑witness. He has been cross‑examined at length and he has admitted that he appeared in 25 cases under Prohibition Order and in 4/5 cases registered under the Arms Ordinance. In this view .of the matter, we discard his evidence from consideration and thus, we are left with the statement of ASI Ghulam Muhammad, P.W. 4 and Mukhtar Ahmad Constable P.W.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the month of December, 1990, in the mid‑night, the appellant would riot have concealed himself in the graveyard and, therefore, the prosecution case is improbable. We have considered this aspect of the case and we do not find any substance in it, inasmuch as, the appellant was a proclaimed offender and the only place where he could hide himself was.‑the graveyard, therefore, his' presence in graveyard cannot be disbelieved. The. prosecution case inspires confidence and we are convinced that the recovery dirt .take place from the appellant. Resultantly, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, the question of sentence in this case requires interference. We feel that the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment in this case would be adequate and accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years instead of four years. He shall be also entitled to benefit under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./1‑40/L Sentence reduced.