' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No,197 of 1992 filed by Muhammad Arif son of Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq alias Phiki appellants, Criminal Appeal No,252 of 1992 filed by Muhammad Arif son of Torez appellant and Criminal Appeal No,6 of 1993 filed by Umar Hayat appellant together as all these matters arise out of the same judgment dated 19-7-1992 passed by learned Magistrate Section 30, Vehari whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 395, P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years' R.I.
With a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default of payment thereof to further undergo R.I. For two years each; also convicted under section 412, P.P.C. And sentenced to four years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default of payment thereof to further undergo R.I. For one year each while co- accused, namely, Qasim Ali has been acquitted of the charge through the same judgment.
However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Was also extended to the appellants.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as narrated in F.I.R. No,14 of 1991 (Exh.PA/1), registered on the statement of Altaf Hussain complainant on 7-1-1991 is that in the night between 6/7-1-1991 he along with Haji Muhammad Saeed partner reached in the factory from Vehari at about 12-30 a.m. In their car bearing Registration No,6235/LOC and saw a Car bearing Registration No,501/SLD being parked at the road side in front of the factory while Arif driver was standing near the said car, while opening bonnet of the same. The complainant and Haji Muhammad Saeed went inside the factory, parked their car in the garage and went to their bedroom. After entering the room, they bolted the door from inside wherein the room Mian Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Shakeel and Maqsood Ahmad were already lying asleep in the room and the bulb was on. Chowkidar Khushi Muhammad knocked the door of that room from outside and called the complainant upon which the complainant opened the door of the room. Suddenly the accused persons while armed with fire- arms entered into the room. Muhammad Arif son of Torez while holding light machinegun threatened the complainant and others not to move otherwise they would be murdered upon which the other P.Ws. Also woke up. The complainant took his licenced gun in his hand, which was lying in the corner of the room, but Umar Hayat appellant caught hold the barrel of the gun and tried to snatch it, which was broken during the said struggle. Thereafter, Muhammad Arif son of Torez appellant demanded the keys of the safe and also snatched the watch belonging to the complainant whereas Umar Hayat and Rafiq appellants snatched the watches from Maqsood Ahmad and Khushi Muhammad Chowkidar, respectively. Muhammad Ali accused snatched Rs,36,000 from the pocket of Haji Yasin while Muhammad Arif son of Torez appellant after opening the safe forcibly through the complainant taken out a sum of Rs,1,00,000 from it, which was stamped of U.B.L., Branch at Vehari and also stamped in the name of Al-Hajaz Company - Sheikh & Co., Vehari whereafter Rafiq appellant demanded the keys of complainant's car, upon which, Haji Muhammad Saeed handed over the keys of said car to Rafiq appellant. The accused/appellant after confining the P.Ws. In the room left the place of occurrence while proving an amount of Rs,1,36,000, four wrist watches, one .12-bore licenced gun and Suzuki Car bearing Registration No,LOC-6235.
3. After registration of the case the police arrested the appellants, effected the recoveries, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of formal investigation, submitted the challan in the Court and copies of documents required under section 241-A, Cr. P. C . Were supplied to the appellants. Charge was framed against the appellants, which was denied by them and the prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 12 witnesses.
4. The appellants in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations and professed innocence. They also claimed to have been involved due to political fraction and got examined Sh. Muhammad Rafiq as D.W.1, Sh. Abdul Latif as D.W.2 and Taj Din as D.W.3 in their defence, who are respectable personalities of the area. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants as stated above, which has been assailed by them through the instant appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the case is totally false as Altaf Hussain complainant P.W.3 is resident of Mauza Moor Khanda, District Sheikhupura while the occurrence had taken place in District Vehari, which according to the complainant is about 120 miles away from the place of occurrence. It is further contended that the appellants were not previously involved in such-like cases. It is also contended that allegedly there was some dispute between Muhammad Rafiq appellant and complainant regarding taking of money and in order to settle the dispute the appellants had come to the factory of the complainant, but the complainant falsely implicated them in the present case in connivance with the police while concocting a false story regarding commission of dacoity by the appellants, which is also not plausible as they are residents of such a far off place where they have never been involved in such-like offences. It is further contended that the recoveries were falsely planted upon the appellants and the said articles had no specific marks, which are easily available in the market. It is next contended that the witnesses had contradicted each other on material points and they were also confronted with their own previous statements. It is further contended that the witnesses are related inter se, who have made a false story regarding commission of the offence. It is further contended that the occurrence allegedly took place in the night and the police in league with the complainant party, who are factory owners wrongly planted- the recovery upon the appellants while the persons of the locality were not joined in the recovery proceedings but only the complainant and police officials were shown as recovery witnesses, which being violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Cannot be relied upon. Lastly, it is contended that the appellants may be acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes this appeal on the ground that the F.I.R. Was got lodged with promptitude; that the appellants were nominated in the F.I.R. With specific roles; that the appellants were arrested and recoveries were also effected from their personal search; that the prosecution story was corroborated by the recovery of weapon and other articles, hence prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned judgments as well as the evidence on record with due care and caution.
8. Admittedly, Muhammad Altaf P.W.3 complainant is resident of Mauza Moor Khanda, District Sheikhupura and all the appellants are also residents of same place. Muhammad Altaf complainant had taken a factory on rent in the name of Al-Hejaz Co. Situated in Chak No,33-WB, Luddon Road, Police Station, Saddar, Vehari and the allegation against the appellants is that they had committed the dacoity in the night between 6/7-1-1991 in the factory of complainant. It is strange that the appellants who were residents of village Moor Khanda which according to the complainant P.W.3, is 120 miles away from the place of occurrence have covered such a distance in order to commit the dacoity in the factory of complainant and they all were arrested from the same vicinity on 12-1-1991 after about five days of the alleged occurrence. Muhammad Rafiq appellant was allegedly arrested on 25-6-1991 within the jurisdiction of same police station and the recovery of Rs, 4 000 was shown to have been effected from him while from the other accused/appellants recovery has allegedly effected from Arif Wala and it was claimed that the said amount was the stolen property, which was drawn from United Bank Branch at Vehari and there was stamp of bank on the said notes.
9. After perusal of the whole prosecution evidence accumulative effect appears to be that this case was not free from doubt and the complainant concocted false story regarding the involvement of the appellants for any other reasons, which have not been disclosed.
10. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellants were ever involved in any criminal case in village Moor Khanda where they usually reside. They were only involved in a criminal case at District Vehari. It is strange that they had only arrived at the factory of the complainant to commit the dacoity after covering a distance of 120 miles from their place of abode, but did not commit any such offence at other places. It appears that the police being in league with the complainant, who was a factory owner has lodged this case for some ulterior motive. Even otherwise, the complainant has been confronted on material points with his previous statement and he has made certain improvements, which appears to be dishonest. After perusal of his statement it is not found confidence-inspiring. He has admitted that Sh. Latif is his cousin who is resident of Mauza Moor Khanda. Sh. Latif has appeared as D.W.2 and supported the defence of Rafiq appellant that case was false and he was involved falsely due to some previous fight with the complainant. All the eye-witnesses are related inter se and working in the factory. As no empty was recovered from the spot, the recovery of weapon from the accused/appellants is of no consequence and does not provide any corroboration to the statements of the complainant and other eye-witnesses. Moreover, the weapons were not sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory for its opinion whether these were in running condition or it matched with any empty.
11. It is also unbelievable that the dacoity was committed in the night between 6/7-1-1991 but still the huge amount was kept by the appellants in their custody, which was allegedly recovered from them whereas the Bank Manager Muhammad Azam Alvi while appearing as P.W.4 surprisingly stated that it was the same amount which was stolen because according to him the stamp of the said bank was affixed on the same. It is strange that without serial numbers of the currency notes how it could be said that it was the same amount drawn by the complainant from the bank and the appellants were keeping all the amount intact with them to create a piece of evidence against them, which also was not spent by them during this period, but was recovered from their personal search in original shape. The statements of the recovery witnesses and the Investigating Officer are found in contradiction with each other regarding the time, place and the manner in which the same was effected. P.W.6 Muhammad Akbar in his cross-examination has stated that he had never visited Mauza Moor Khanda and he himself is resident of Gulshan Ravi, Lahore but he has failed to show that how he had known the appellants with their parentages and their caste.
Moreover, he could not give any plausible explanation for his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence and the accused without any intention or motive had committed the dacoity in the factory of the complainant and Muhammad Saeed. Muhammad Saeed is also close relative of the complainant as the sister of Muhammad Saeed married with brother of Muhammad Altaf complainant.
12. The statements of the eye-witnesses are not confidence-inspiring and it seems that they have concocted a false story to enrope them in this case falsely. Their statements are not worthy of reliance. The only independent witness of the alleged occurrence was the watchman of the factory but he was not examined as P.W. By the prosecution. It is also strange that one co-accused of the appellants, namely, Qasim was also nominatd in the present case who was already arrested by the police in another case and a sum of Rs,9,500 was also shown to be recovered from him, which was allegedly stolen/snatched by the accused but he was declared not guilty.
13. After perusal of the whole evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and it appears that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner narrated by the P.Ws., but there were some hidden reasons to implicate them in the. Instant case. The recovery evidence is also not plausible and seems to have been created to falsely implicate the appellants in the present case.
Hence, all the three appeals are accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt.
The appellants are on bail and shall be discharged of the liability of the surety bonds. The currency notes allegedly recovered from the appellants during the investigation presently on Superdari with the complainant shall be confiscated in favour of the State as there is no conclusive proof that these were the same currency notes allegedly stolen during the occurrence and the appellants have also denied its recovery from them.