1. ' MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---The appellant being aggrieved of his conviction made through order dated 8-10-2009 by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Quetta, whereby he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs,10,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo six months simple imprisonment, for offence punishable under section 392 PPC.
2. He preferred instant appeal on grounds that he has committed no offence, rather initially the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, while after one and a half years he was arrested on 16-1- 2009 on pointation made by the complainant, but no identification parade was held. Further, a culprit of the same name was killed by police in an encounter on 17-3-2009. Furthermore, the trial court erred in law while admitting inadmissible evidence. Furthermore, there is misreading, non- reading and misappreciation of evidence by the trial court. The contradictions arises in the evidence are not considered, nor benefit of doubt arisen thereon, were given in his favour. He prayed for setting aside of impugned judgment and his acquittal of the charge.
3. ' The perusal of record reveals that FIR No,185 of 2007 Police Station Satellite Town Quetta dated 2- 9-2007 registered on report of one Abdul Rizwan pertaining to an incident occurred on 2-9-2007 at 3-45 a.m. When seven/eight armed persons with muffled faces entered their house after breaking the locks, on his resistance beaten him with kicks and fists and hit him on his head with something thereby injured him. They forcibly took cash, bonds and golden ornaments after breaking the locks of cupboards and also snatched golden ornaments wearing by his mother and sister and fled away. He further asserted that he can identify two of them as during struggle their faces were unveiled. Matter was reported to police by the complainant, whereby report was registered and on completion of investigation case was initially challaned to the extent of accused Hizbullah while eight other persons were shown as absconders. Thereafter, supplementary challan was filed to the extent of accused Hazrat Mughal on 14-4-2008. While second supplementary challan was submitted in 2009 to the extent of accused Abdul Wali (present appellant). Charge was framed to the extent of accused Hizbullah and Hazrat on 19-5-2008, while charge was framed against accused Abdul Wali (appellant) on 6-3-2009. These charges were framed for offence punishable under section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, read with sections 392 and 34 PPC. Thirteen witnesses were produced by the prosecution to establish the charge, while the accused persons including the appellant opted not to record their statements on oath or produce any evidence in their defence. The trial court on completion of trial decided the case through judgment made on 8-10-2009 whereby convicted accused Hizbullah and Abdul Wali (appellant) for offence punishable under section 392 PPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for seven years with fine of Rs,10,000/-, in default further suffer six months' S.-I., while accused Hazrat Mughal was acquitted of the charge as case is not established against him.
4. ' The main contention of the appellant is that the trial court misread, nonread and misappreciated the evidence produced before the court. Further, despite the fact that he has not been nominated in F.I.R., rather after a period of one and a half years he was implicated and thereby arrested and no identification parade was held, without considering the same the trial court awarded him the sentence. The trial court without formulating the specific points for determination decided the case. It is apparent from record that the matter was reported to the Police Authorities on the same day of occurrence withoutany delay, but no one was specifically nominated, rather report was made against unknown persons, who were seven or eight in number. As per supplementary challan the appellant/ accused was arrested on 16-1-2009 from Bus Stand at Satellite Town Quetta on pointation made by the complainant. He while appearing before the court has stated that at the time of incident the appellant/accused hold him from back and strangle him, when he (complainant) pulled him (appellant) with force his muffler was let down therefore he can identify the accused present in the Court. As such when he saw the accused/appellant at Bus Adda he got him arrested by the police on his own pointation. He also identified the accused/ present appellant while appearing before the court. Though there is objection rather contention raised by the appellant that after his arrest no identification parade was held as per requirement of law. It may he so, but it is an admitted position that the appellant was not identified by the complainant during the course of identification parade held by the authorities. But this fact has come on record, rather not disputed from defence side that the appellant was arrested on pointation made by the complainant. In such circumstances, there seems to be no occasion for process of holding identification parade in order to get the accused Abdul Wali identified by the complainant. There seems to be no illegality in decision of the trial court to this extent.
5. Though plea of misreading and non-reading of evidence has been specifically taken, but the, appellant has failed to point out any specific piece of evidence which is not considered or which part of evidence is used in other sense than the one for which it has been produced. Three eye witnesses identified the appellant being one of the culprits. No material contradiction is pointed out in the statement of the witnesses. Though no recovery of stolen articles were effected from the appellant, but this fact less favourable for him as the appellant while cross-examining the witnesses neither disputed the occurrence of the incident, nor even disputed the fact alleged stolen articles taken from the house of the complainant.
6. ' The trial court has rightly assessed the material present before it and come to the right conclusion. The witnesses narrated the facts corroborating the presence of each other, with no material contradiction, the benefit of which can be extended in favour of the appellant/accused.
7. No instance of misreading and non-reading of evidence is pointed out, nor even the misappreciation of facts. The trial court properly appreciated the facts and gave findings on basis of the same, thus arrived to the correct decision. The appellant has failed to point out any such irregularity and illegality in the impugned order, on basis of which impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
8. ' In view of above discussion the appellant has failed to make out any case in his favour. No interference is required to be made in impugned judgment, which is hereby upheld. Appeal is dismissed being without merits.