Conclusion of trial in case F.I.R. No, 13 of 2000 registered under Section 17(3) of The Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (VI of 1979) (Hereinafter called The Ordinance) and Section 392 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860) (Hereinafter called The Code), learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta through judgment dated 15.02.2005 recorded conviction against the present appellant sentence of three years rigrous imprisonment alongwith fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I. Benefit of Section 382-B of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898)
(Hereinafter called Act V of 1898) was also extended in favour of appellants.
2. By way of present appeal, the appellants have called in question vires of said Judgment, seeking acquittal while setting aside the judgment.
3. The appellants earlier preferred appeal before Honourable High Court of Sindh and for want of jurisdiction, it was remitted to this Court through order dated 2.4.2015.
4. Accusation contained in the crime Report (Ex.8-A) got recorded by Muhammad Sommar (P.W.1) is that on 29.03.2000 at about 7.00 a.m. three unknown persons armed with daggers entered in his house in his absence and by show of force took gold ornaments (detail of which has been given in the crime Report) lying in the box, Detail of occurrence was intimated to the complainant by his son, Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) and wife (not eited as a witness).
The occurrence is stated to be seen by Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) son of complainant as well as Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.3), brother of the complainant who is residing near the house of complainant and his wife.
5. Since the assailants were unknown, therefore after arrest of the present appellants being suspects who were arrested on 31.05.2000 were put to identification test conducted on 01.06.2000 under the supervision of Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi, Judicial Magistrate, Sujawal and in the identification test, the witnesses, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.2-P.W.3) identified the appellants as assailants.
During the course of investigation after disclosure each appellant got recovered gold Jhommaks, gold arm belt and daggers through recovery memos (Ex.15-A to 15-C.)
After usual investigation and oberving codal and legal formalities Report under Section 173 of Act of V of 1898 was submitted. The appellants who were charged under Section 17(3) of the Ordinance read with Sections 392 and 34 of the Code pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosectution in order to prove its case produced as many as eight witnesses including complainant, Muhammad Sommar (P.W.1), Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.3) (eye-witnesses).
The appellants in their respective statements recorded under Section 342 of the Act V of 1898 denied the whole incriminating evidence with which they were confronted and pleaded innocence.
The appellants produced Dr. Rafique Ahmed (D.W.1), Nazir Ahmed (D.W.2) and Liaqat Ali (D.W.3) besides documentary evidence.
7. The learned Trial Court after hearing the adversaries recorded conviction against the appellants awarding them sentence, the detail of which has been given in Para-1 of the judgment.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellants while questioning the evidentiary value of the evidence led by the prosecution contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, Further contended that Muhammad Sommar, complainant (P.W.1) is not the eye- witness of occurrence and as such his evidence would not advance the plea off prosection in order to prove the guilt of the appellants, Making reference to the evidence of Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.8), it was submitted that the said witnesses did not disclose the role of the appellants as an accused during the course of identifiation parade as well as while appearing as witness and as such the evidence would not be suffeient to prove the guilt of appellants. Further contended 'that description of the assailants was not given by both the witnesses while associating themselves in the investigation which omission in the opinion a learned Counsel for the appellants is sufficient to brush aside this evidenee.
Continuing the arguments, it was further argued that all the three, appellants were put in for identification jointly though then must have been separate identification parade for each appellant. I was further submitted that there is nothing on a. record to suggest this features and description of the dummies in the report and as such the said report would not advance the plea of prosecution. To substantiate the contentions help was sought from the dictum laid down in "La Pasand v. The State" (P.L.D. 1981 S.C. 142) "Siraj-ul-Haq and another v. The State" (2008 SCMR 302) and "Hakeem and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 1546).
Further contended that there is a delay in holding o identification test and as such same got no evidentiary value Reference was made to the Ratio expounded in "Shafqat Mehmood an others v.
The State" (2011 'SCMR 537). Adverting to the factum, o recoveries, it was submitted that the said aspect was heavily relief upon by the learned Trial Court but since the case property was no produced during the course of trial, therefore, is of little help to the case of prosecution. Reliance was placed upon "Khairuddin and others u. The State" (1974 P.Cr.L.J. 219) and "Muhammad Asgha alias Pappu v. The State" (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1575). Alternatively, it was argued that the recovery of articles being corroborative evidence would not prove the case of prosecution.
9. Controverting the arguments, learned law Officer as well a learned Counsel for the, complainant submitted that Muhammad Ami (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.3) are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence whose evidence despite cross-examination could not be shaken in cross- examination. Referring to the statements of both the witnesses, it was submitted that presence of the said witnesses at the spot cannot be questioned and both the witnesses in their dire' statements categorically stated the whole case of prosecution, which in line with the case setup in the crime Report (Ex.8-A). It was further argued that both the witnesses in their respective statement categorically stated that they identified the appellants as assailants identification test held on 01.06.2000.
Replying to the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding the delay in conduct of identification test, it was submitted that all the three appellants were arrested on 31.05.2000 as is evidence from mashirname (Ex.13-A) and identification parade was held on 01.06.2000 without any delay as is evident from mashirnama (Ex 13- B). Making reference to the statements of Mir Muhammad (P WA) and Ghulam Nabi, Inspector.O. (P.W.8), it was contended that the recovery witness as well as Investigating Officer proved the factum of recovery of robbed articles and weapons of offence from all the three appellants. Repelling the contention regarding non- production of case property during the course of trial, it was pointed out that Ghulam Nabi, the then Inspector (I.0) (P.W.8) categorically stated that the accused as well as property viz. gold ornaments before the Court are one and the same.
Continuing the arguments, it was further argued that in view of the evidence led by the prosecution which is worthy of credit, the prosecution established its case against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt. The defence, contended, produced by the appellants coming from the mouth of witnesses (D.W.1 to D.W.3) is neither convincing nor inspire confidence which aspect was rightly pointed out by the learned Trial Court. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court granted undue premium to the appellants while awarding lesser sentence which should not have been in view of conclusion of learned Trial Court regarding the proof of guilt of appellants beyond shadow of doubt. Highlighting the cumulative effect, it was submitted that the judgment assailed by way of present appeal does not call for any interference.
10. Occurrence took place at 7:00 a.m. as is evident from the copy of F.I.R. (Ex.8-A). The complainant, Le., Muhammad Soomar (P.W.1) though deposed that he went to police station for registration of F.I.R. but he did not tell the time of his visit to police station. Sohrab Khan, Sub-Inspector (P.W.7) in his statement maintained that complainant visited police station at 5:30 p.m., which fact also finds mentioned in the crime Report (Ex.8-A). Perusal of column No,' 4 of the F.I.R. further reveals that place of occurrence, (house of the complainant) is at the distance of one and a half furlong. The complainant neither in the. F.I.R. nor, as a witness (P.W.1) disclosed any compulsion in order to justify the delay in lodging the F.I.R.
Delay in lodging F.I.R. though suggests element of deliberation and consultation and can also suggest the absence of the witnesses at the spot as held in a "Farman Ahmed v. Muhammad inayat and others" (2007 SCMR 1825) but since the accused were not nominated in the F.I.R. therefore, question of deliberation and consultation cannot be presumed though one can dispute the presence of the witnesses at the spot. It is to be noted that spontaneity of the F.I.R. is the guarantee of truth to a greater extent. Reliance is placed upon the 'dictum laid down in "Mushtaq Hussain and another vs. The State" 1(2011 SCMR'45),
11. Before dealing with the evidence led by the prosecution, there is another factor which is required to be highlighted, As pointed out, occurrence took place on 26,03,2000 at 7:00 a,m, F,I,R, was lodged though on the same day but at 17;30 p,m, Statements of the witnesses (P,W,2, P,W,3) under Section 161 of the Mt V of 1898 were recorded on the next day, I,e,, 30,03,2000 as deposed by Sohrab Khan, SIP. Investigation Officer (P,W,7), Delay in recording the statements under Section 101 of the Mt V- of 1898 has not been explained by the witnesses (P,W,243,W,8), It is further to he noted that both the witnesses In their respective statements did not attribute either delay or malice to the Investigating Officer (P,W,7), In the circumstances, the evidence of said witnesses cannot be safely relied upon, If any authority is needed on the point, Reference may be. made to "Muhammad Asif a. The State"
(2017 SCMR 488), "Rahat AB u. The State" (2010 SCMR 584) and "Ohulam WO and 2 ethers V The State" (2008 SCMR 1221), 12, Admittedly, case was registered against unknown accused: Record does not suggest how the appellants game into picture Wag accused which fact, however, would not be sufficient to put a dent in the case of prosecution by itself warranting aequittal,
18. In order to establish the guilt of appellants, the prosecution has banked upon the evidence of identification parade supervised by Syed Sagheer Ahmed Neqvi, Judicial Magistrate, Sujawal, Prior .to dealing with the question of admissibility and evidentiary value of identification test, it is desirable to make reference to the deposition of complainant, Muhammad Homier (P,W,1) and Muhammad Amin (P,W,2), The leter-mentioned witness (P,W,2) stated in his direct statement that three with open face entered in their house. However, the complainant (P,W,1) introduced a different version by adding that his wife (not produced as a witness) and his sett Muhammad Amin (1,W,2) informed him that the dacoits had muffled face He further disclosed that his wife also intimated that during the course of robbery, muffle of one culprit was removed who was identified by his wife es Olittlam Ali (Appellant NO: 4)1 Statements of the complainant, Muhammad Soomar (MO and Muhammad Amin (P,W,O) on this aspect cannot be reconciled and as such no implicit reliance can be placed upon the statements of said witnesses in order to establish the identity of appellants as assailants: If the assailants committed oceurrense having muffled faces as per stance of the complainant, how it was possible for the witnesses to identify the appellants as culprits?
Perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.8-A) reveals that full particulars and description of the accused was not given in it and it just finds mentioned that one of the accused was wearing yellow colour clothes having a strong built while others who were wearing black colour clothes were of medium built. Un-deniably keeping in view this description, it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the assailants, particularly keeping in view the date of identification test held on 01.06.2000 though occurrence took place on 29.03.2000. For all intents and purposes, it will be presumed that the F.I.R. does not contain the features of the accused. However, since the complainant is neither the eye-witness nor the identifier of the appellants, therefore, the fact by itself would not be sufficient to cast doubt about the veracity of prosecution version, particularly keeping in view the reply given in cross-examination by Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) stating that he disclosed description and features of the accused in his statement before the police which reply though was questioned by putting a suggestion in cross-examination but the witness was riot confronted with his statement referred to.
14.However, Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.3) admitted in cross-examination that he did not disclose the features of the accused to the police.
In the circumstances, the evidence of Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.3) is liable to be brushed aside keeping in view this omission in view of rule of law laid down in "Maula Dad alias Maula and others v. Emperor" (AIR 1925 Lahore 426), "State/Government Of Sindh through Advocate-General Sindh, Karachi v. Sobharo" (1993 SCMR 585), Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State" (2011 SCMR 563) and "Mansoor Ahmed alias Shahzad alias Sheeri and others v. The State (2012 YLR 2481).
Referring to the evidence of identification parade, ' it was rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that since it was joint identification test though separate identification parade should have been held, therefore, it will not advance plea of prosecution as ruled in the dictum laid down in "Hakeem and others v. The State" (2017 SCMR 1546) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants.
15.Perusal of the statement of Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.3) clearly reveals that the witnesses did not disclose the role of each appellant causing serious blow to the case of prosecution as held in "Siraj-u1-Haq and another v. The State" (2008 SCMR 302).
16.In view of the infirmities pointed out, no implicit reliance can be placed upon the identification parade. I am fortified in my view by law laid down in "Ghulam Rasool and 3 others v. The State"
(1998 SCMR 557), "Mehrnood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another" (1995 SCMR 127), "Solat Ali Khan v. The state" (2002 SCMR 820), "Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2011 SCMR 527), "Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State" (2011 SCMR 563) and "Mansoor Ahmed alias Shahzad alias Sheeri and others u. The State" (2012 YLR 2481).
Same rule of law was expounded in "Lal Pasand u. The State" (P.L.D. 1981 S.C. 142) relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellants.
17.Matter does not end here. Strangely enough, the prosecution did not produce Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi, Judicial Magistrate, Sujawal, who supervised the identification test. Original report of identification parade was also not brought on record. Copy of rnashirnama (Ex.13-B) is not substitute of the report of identification parade which surprisingly was not produced on behalf of prosecution for the reasons best known to the person conducting the prosecution. The omission is significant which has laid foundation of acquittal of appellants.
Even if this aspect is ignored, it would not be sufficient to bank upon the said mashirnama (Ex.13-B) in view of discussion made earlier.
18.Matter can be examined from another angle as well. Muharflmad Ibrahim (P.W.3) brother of the complainant has been named as an eye-witness of the occurrence but keeping in view the evidence of Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) by no stretch of imagination he can be stamped as eye- witness. Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) in his direct statement maintained that "After departure of the culprits, they raised cries which attracted my uncle Ibrahim. My uncle had seen .the culprits". He further stated that he narrated the occurrence to his uncle. In cross-examination, the witness disclosed that his uncle reached after about 3-4 minutes of departure of the culprits. It is the high time to make reference to the statement of Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.3) who deposed in his examination-in-chief that after hearing the cry coming from the house of complainant he came out of his house and saw three persons with open faces having draggers in their hands going 'from the street near the outer door of the house of the complainant. In the circumstances, there can be no two opinions that the said witness though picked appellants as assailants in identification parade cannot be said to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. Seeing the appellants in the street even near the outer door of house of complainant, by itself would not be sufficient, even to presume that the said person is an eye-witness. It is further to be noted that keeping in view the statement of complainant (P.W.1) adding that his wife due to removal of muffler of one culprit identified Ghulam Ali (Appellant No, 3) as an accused and she also disclosed the name of said accused, then how the identification of said accused by the witnesses can be believed, relied and acted upon?
Perusal of the replies given in the cross-examination by Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.3) clearly reveals that Bashir Ahmed and Feroz Ahmed (Appellants No, 1 & 2) are resident of Chuhar Jamali and the complainant (P.W.1), as well as witnesses (P.W.2-P.W.3) are their village fellows. In the circumstances, when the occurrence took place in a daylight and according to the version of Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) the culprits with open face entered in his house, then how it can be said that the witnesses (P.W.2-P.W.3) were unable to identify the appellants as accused, particularly when the F.I.R. was lodged with the delay of 101/2 hours. It is further to be noted that Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) in cross-examination maintained that inter-se distance between his house and house of Ghulam Ali (Appellant No, 3) is 70/80 paces. In the circumstances, how one can believe and act upon the version of the complainant as well as the witnesses that the culprits were unknown and stranger.
Viewed from whichever angle, no reliance can be placed upon the evidence led by prosecution including the process of identification test.
19. Great stress was laid down on behalf of complainant about fatcum of recoveries got recovered by appellants through recovery memos (Ex.15-A to 15-C).
According to mashirnama (Ex. 15-A). Bashir Ahmed (Appellant No, 1) got recovered one gold Jhoomak with colourful pearls and one dagger having two edges, while Feroz Ahmed (Appellant No, 2) got recovered one golden arm belt and one dagger. Through mashirnama (Ex.15-C) Ghulam Ali (Appellant No 3) on pointation got recovered one gold jhoomak with colourful pearls and one dagger.
There is no need to deal with the evidence of Mir Muhammad (P.W.6) who is the mashir of all the mashirnamas and Ghulam NabiInspector/I.O. (P.W.8). The recovery would not advance the plea of prosecution in order to prove the culpability of appellants for two-fold reasons. According to the prosecution version all the three appellants got recovered gold arm belt and two gold jhoomaks but admittedly there is nothing on record to suggest that said articles were ever identified either by the complainant (P.W.1) or by his son (P.W.2) or any other person claiming ownership.
Recovery of dagger, even if taken as gospel truth, would not be sufficient to advance the plea of prosecution to prove the guilt of appellants as the factum of recovery of weapon of offence is a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot he basis for recording conviction. Reliance is placed upon the Ratio enunciated in "Noor Muhammad v. The State and another" (2010 SCMR 97) and "Riaz Ahmed v. The State" (2010 SCMR 846).
20. There is another aspect which is required to be dealt with putting another dent in the case of prosecution. The complainant (P.W.1) in his statement maintained that the dacoits also caused injuries to his wife. Muhammad Amin (P.W.2) also deposed that culprits started beating to him as well as his mother but the said aspect was not disclosed in the F.I.R. If the wife of complainant sustained injuries why she was not subjected to medical examination?
Non-production of wife of the complainant is another fact, causing adverse effect to the case of prosecution particularly, when as per complainant (P.W.1) she sustained injuries and also identified Ghulam. Ali, one of the appellant in view of Article 129(g) of The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (President Order No, 10 of 1984).
21. Viewed from whichever angle; the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt.
22. Suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place of proof.
23. The learned law Officer as well as learned Counsel for the complainant while making reference to the statements of the appellants under Section 342 of Act V of 1898 and evidence of defence witnesses (D.W.1 to D.W.3) and documents produced contended that the said evidence is sketchy and does not inspire confidence which was rightly brushed aside by the learned Trial Court.
Since the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt as discussed, therefore, the defence version regarding false implication, even if not trustworthy, would not be sufficient to grant any premium to the prosecution.
24. In view of discussion made in preceding paragraphs, there can be no two opinions that prosecution failed to prove its case against 1 the appellants beyond shadow of doubt and as such benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of appellants as a matter of right. Reliance is placed upon "Tariq Pervez v. The State" (1995 SCMR 1345), "Allah Bachaya and another v. The State" (PLD 2008 S.C. 349), "Wajahat Ahmed and others v. The State and others" (2016 SCMR 2073) and "Hashim Qasim and another v. The State" (2017 SCMR 986).
25.Epitome of above discussion is that while extending benefit of doubt, present appeal is allowed and while setting aside the judgment of learned Trial Court recording conviction and awarding sentence to the appellants, they are acquitted.
26.The appellants are on bail. They and their sureties stand discharged of their respective bonds.