' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--Hakim Ali and Qasim All appellants were convicted for an offence under section 396, P.P.C. Vide judgment 15-6-1999 handed down by the learned Judge, Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Multan Division, Multan and were sentenced to imprisonment for life each and a fine of Rs,1,00,000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr,P.C. Was extended to the appellants. The appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences before this Court through the present appeal.
2. The necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal are that at about 5-45 p.m on 9-12-1989 six unknown dacoits armed with firearms committed a dacoity at the jewellery shop of Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.9) situated in a bazaar outside Sabzi Mandi, Arifwala, District Sahiwal (Now District Pakpattan Sharif) and during the said incident the dacoits had indulged in firing resulting in the death of Muhammad Sharif deceased and sustaining of injuries. By Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.9), Muhammad Azam (P.W.11) and Shabbir Ahmad (P.W.14). F.I.R. No,522 was lodged in respect of the said incident by Rashid Ahmad Nasir complainant (P.W.8) at 6-15 p.m on 9-12-1989 at police station City Arifwala, District Sahiwal (Now District Pakpattan Sharif). During the investigation the present appellants were arrested by the local police and the weapons of offence were recovered from their possession. Five co-accused of the appellants, who had also been implicated in this case during the investigation, became fugitives from law and they were declared as Proclaimed Offenders. A co-accused of the appellants namely Rana Masood Akhtar was also arrested by the police. During the investigation a test identification parade was held in this case wherein the present appellants had been correctly picked up by some of the eyewitnesses. After submission of the challan the appellants and their co-accused namely Rana Masood Akhtar were tried by the learned trial court and at the conclusion of the trial Rana Masood Akhtar accused was acquitted by the learned trial Court but, after finding the prosecution's case against the appellants to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, they are entitled to be acquitted. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt to the hilt and, therefore, their convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance, it has been observed by me that six different categories of evidence had been produced by the prosecution against the appellants before the learned trial Court. These categories included the ocular account, the test identification parade, identification of the appellants before the learned trial Court, recovery of weapons from the appellant's possession and their matching with some crime-empties, medical evidence and the evidence pertaining to investigation of this case.
5. The prosecution had produced as many as six eyewitness before the learned trial Court and out of them three were injured witnesses who had received injuries during the main occurrence. Rashid Ahmad Nasir complainant (P.W.8), Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.9), Nasir Ahmad (P. W.12) and Shabbir Ahmad (P.W.14) had consistently deposed against the present appellants and out of the said witnesses Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.9) and Shabbir Ahmad (P..W.14) had the stamp of injuries on their persons so as to vouchsafe their presence at the scene of the crime at the relevant time.
Muhammad Aslam (P. W.10), who was not even mentioned in the F.I.R. As an eyewitness, and Muhammad Azam (P.W.11), an injured witness, had, however stated before the learned trial Court that they could 'not identify the appellants before the Court as they had not been able to identify the assailants at the time of the occurrence. Be that as it may, the other four eyewitnesses, including two injured witnesses, had consistently pointed their accusing fingers towards the appellants as members of the party of dacoits which had committed the relevant offence at the spot at the relevant time. Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.9), an injured witness, had not even been cross- examined by the defence. All these eyewitnesses were natural witnesses who had their places of business in the same bazaar or had advanced plausible explanation for their presence in that bazaar at the time of the present occurrence. These witnesses had made straightforward and honest statements before the learned trial Court and the said statements had not been seriously questioned by the defence before the learned trial Court. These eyewitnesses had absolutely no background of or animosity against the present appellants prompting the former to falsely implicate the latter in a case of this nature. It may be pertinent to mention here that both the appellants belong to District Faisalabad whereas the above mentioned eyewitnesses belonged to Arifwala in District Sahiwal (Now District Pakpattan Sharit) and these eyewitnesses had never come in contact with the appellants prior to the present occurrence. The statements made by these eyewitnesses before the learned trial Court had not only impressed the learned trial Court but have also inspired my confidence.
6. The test identification parade held in this case on 25-2-1990 may not be discussed by me in detail as the learned Magistrate supervising the said parade had not been produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court and, thus, the evidentiary value of the said parade had been diminished.
7. Rashid Ahmad Nasir complainant (P.W.8), Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.9), Nasir Ahmad (P.W.12) and Shabbir Ahmad (P.W.14) had identified the present appellants before the learned trial Court B as the persons who had actively participated in the dacoity in issue and had resorted to firing resulting in the death of one person and sustaining of injuries by three others. In the absence of any motivation on the part of these eyewitnesses to falsely implicate the appellants in this case I have found no reason for not relying on such identification of the appellants as the actual culprits who had, along with some of their co-accused, committed the relevant offence.
8. During the investigation some jewellery and cash had been recovered from the appellants' possession but such recovery was legally inconsequential as the owner of the stolen jewellery and cash namely Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.9) as well as Ghulam Sarwar, S.-I. (P.W.19), the Investigating Officer, had not uttered a single word before the learned trial Court about the recovered jewellery and cash having been identified by Mehmood Ahmad (P.W.9) as part of the stolen property.
However, the recoveries of weapons from the present appellants during the investigation of this case had provided significant corroboration to the ocular C account as the firearms recovered from the appellants' possession had subsequently matched with some of the crime-empties recovered from the place of occurrence. The crime-empties in this case had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory prior to recovery of weapons from the appellant's possession and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that two crime-empties had matched with the gun recovered from Hakim Ali appellant's possession and one crime-empty had matched with the pistol recovered from Qasim Ali appellant's custody. Such recoveries had gone a long way in corroborating the ocular account and in establishing actual participation of the present appellants in the relevant offence.
9. The medical evidence had provided full support to the ocular account inasmuch as the date and time of occurrence, the weapons used and the locale of D injuries stated by the eyewitnesses had been fully confirmed by the medical evidence.
10. During the investigation of this case the involvement of the present appellants had satisfactorily been established and sufficient evidence had been collected during the investigation establishing culpability of the appellants.
11. For what has been discussed above I have arrived at a confident conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The sentences passed against the appellants by the learned trial Court have been found by me to be lawful and, keeping in view the circumstances of this case, not excessive. This appeal is therefore, dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and maintained.