' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA J.---The appellants have filed the above criminal appeals against the common judgment dated 10-12-2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, convicting the appellants under sections 392/34, P.P.C., in Session case No,106 of 2005, culminated F.I.R No,44/2005, Police Station Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi, sentencing them to undergo R.I for three years and fine of Rs,10,000 each, in default thereof to undergo S.I for one month more.
2. Concisely facts of the case are that complainant Ijaz Ahmed lodged F.I.R. That on 8-3-2005, he was travelling in a Coach of Route D-17, at about 10-00 p.m., when the Coach reached at Malir Nadi Bridge, four persons who were also travelling in same coach, on gun-point snatched valuables from the passengers, they also snatched RS.1, 025 from complainant, the culprits thereafter alighted from coach and tried to run away. The complainant also alighted from coach and saw a police party, patrolling on motorcycle. The complainant narrated the incident to them. Police party chased the culprits and apprehended there on enquiry they disclosed their names to be Muhammad Aftab, Mazhar, Shahzeb and Abdul Rehman. From their personal search the police party had recovered one TT pistol and three draggers along will dated amount of Rs,1,025. The police party thereafter brought the culprits and recovered properties at police station where the complainant lodged F.I.R.
3. The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation, recorded the statement of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. And after completing the investigation submitted Challan. The trial Court recorded the evidence and after hearing the counsel for both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred hereinabove.
4. During pendency of appeal, the sentence of the appellants was suspended and they were ordered to be released on bail. Appellant Muhammad Aftab and Abdul Rehman had furnished the required sureties and were released on bail, whereas the appellant Shahzeb did not furnish surety.
5. A report was called from Superintendent Central Prison, Karachi, who has reported that appellant Shahzeb on expiry of sentence under the remission system was released from prison on 28-5-2007.
However, after his release neither the appellant Shahzeb, nor his counsel have attended the Court, therefore notice to appellant through S.H.O., Police Station Shah Latif Town was issued, the same was returned unserved with the endorsement that the present whereabouts of appellant Shahzeb are not known. The above conduct shows that after release the appellant Shahzeb has lost his interest to proceed with the matter further.
6. Appellant Abdul Rehman after release has jumped over the concession of bail and absconded away. The bailable warrant was issued against the appellant and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C.
To his surety Mst. Sakeena, the real mother of appellant. The bailable warrant was returned unexecuted with the endorsement that Abdul Rehman was not traceable, whereas the notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was served upon surety Mst. Sakeena. However, neither the surety Mst.
Sakeena has produced the appellant, nor furnished reply to show-cause notice. The order sheet of this case also reflects that earlier the appellant had remained absent on various dates of hearing, his mother Surety Mst. Sakeena in pursuance of notice appeared before this Court and had undertaken to produce the appellant before this Court on each date of hearing, on the undertaking of his mother, the absence of appellant was condoned with the warning to be careful, but has failed to take care of, in these circumstances there is no other option but to forfeit the surety furnished by Mst. Sakeena and to decide the case against the appellant Abdul Rehman in his absence on the basis of evidence available on record with the assistance of learned counsel for appellant Muhammad Aftab and learned A.P.-G., as the evidence against all the appellants is same. The Nazir is directed to initiate the proceedings for recovery of forfeited surety amount of Rs,50,000.
7. The prosecution to substantiate the charge has examined the complainant Ijaz Ahmed, PC Sadaqat Ali, ASIP Syed. Haris Haidri and P.W. Muhammad Aslam. They have supported the prosecution, the complainant Ijaz Ahmed in his evidence before the trial Court has narrated the incident in detail and also identified all the appellants to be the same culprits. The complainant has also supported the recovery of robbed amount of Rs,1,025 one pistol and three draggers from the possession of appellants. The complainant was cross-examined at length, however learned defence counsel has failed to extract any material favourable to the appellants, who were apprehended soon after the incident near the place of incident. The evidence of complainant is corroborated by the members of patrolling police party, who chased the culprits and apprehended them, near the place of incident, so also made recovery as shown in F.I.R. They were also cross- examined but nothing has come on record to cause even slight doubt in prosecution case. Learned defence counsels have also not suggested any enmity of the appellants with the complainant or any other prosecution witness compelling them to involve the appellants falsely.
8. The appellants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Have denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they have been implicated by the A.S.-I. Haris Haideri, who has friendly terms with the complainant, however in absence of any enmity there appears no reason to believe the defence version.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Muhammad Aftab, during arguments has contended that as per prosecution the culprits had also snatched the valuables from othert passengers of coach, but except complainant no one has come forward to support the complainant's version and to identify the appellants to be the same culprits. However, learned defence counsel has admitted that there was no enmity of appellants with the complainant or other witnesses, even they had not known/seen to each other prior to this incident.
10. Learned A.P.-G. Has contended that in view of the submissions of learned defence counsel, there appears no reason to disbelieve the unimpeachable evidence of prosecution witnesses. Learned A.P.-G. Has further contended that now-a-days the situation of street crime in city is alarming and increasing day by day, the victims are avoiding to come forward and give evidence against the culprits involved in street crimes.
11. From the facts and discussion hereinabove, the prosecution evidence is inspiring confidence and credible and the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy. The police officials are good witnesses as any other, their evidence cannot be discarded unless any material is brought on record to indicate that they are biased or prejudiced for some extraneous reasons, such reasons the defence counsel has failed to point out. The trial Court has discussed the prosecution evidence conscientiously and has come to a correct conclusion holding the appellants guilty of committing the robbery. The impugned judgment does not suffer from infirmity requires the interference of this Court; therefore, the appeals are dismissed.
' Appellants Muhammad Aftab is present in Court, he is taken into custody and remanded to Central Prison, Karachi to serve out the remaining period of sentence.
' The trial court is directed to issue warrants against the appellant Abdul Rehman and to ensure his arrest so as to he may serve the remaining period of sentence.