1. ' Applicant abovenamed being aggrieved by judgment, dated 15th December, 1980 of the learned F.C.M. And Civil Judge, Tando Allahyar and judgment dated 14th November, 1981 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Cr. Appeal No,90 of 1981, by which appellants have been convicted under sections 506(1) and 451(1). P.P.C. And ,sentenced to suffer R.I. For 6 months each and on each account both sentences run concurrently, have filed the above petition on the following facts and grounds: ' On 6th August, 1980 complainant Nasiruddin had lodged his report 3t P.P. Umar Sand alleging that about 3 years back he had married with Mst. Fajri the daughter of one Shitab Khan. He resides in his house in village Usman Shah-ji-Huri. After marriage the parents of his wife time to time visited the house of complainant, and they used to instigate his wife against him, as they wanted to get her marriage dissolved and marry her somewhere else. Mst. Fajri had informed the complainant about the designs of her parents. About two months back Mst. Fajri had restrained her parents from coming in the house of complainant, as they were damaging the happy married life of complainant and his wife. That attitude of Mst. Fajri, the wife of complainant annoyed her father Shitab. About 8/10 days prior to this incident appellants Shitab came in the house of complainant and insisted upon Mst. Fajri to accompany him, but she refused. The appellant while leaving the house of complainant and Mst. Fajri threatened them of dire consequences.
2. ' At about 2 p.m. Of 6th August, 1980 appellants Shitab, Feroz and Ali Muhammad entered into the house of complainant, appellant Shitab had a revolver in his hand and other two had Lathis. They forced Mst. Fajri to go with them. The complainant intervened but appellant Shitab pointed - revolver at him and threatened him of death. The complainant raised cries, which attracted Ghulam Muhammad Makrani, Islam Shamado and others. They also witnessed the incident with the help of these persons the appellants were caught. The complainant leaving the appellants in the custody of P.Ws. Went at the P.P.Umar Sand where he lodged the instant report.
3. ' The police after usual investigation challaned the appellants as above. A charge Exh.2 was framed against the appellants. All the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.
4. ' Prosecution examined P.W. Nasiruddin the complainant as Exh.3, who produced F.I.R. Exh.3-A P.W.
5. Kaley Khan deposed as Exh.4 and produced Mashirnama of vardat as Exh.4-A, Mashirnama arrest of appellant as Exh.4-B and Mashirnama of recovery of revolver as Exh.4-C. P.W. Ghulam Muhammad was examined as Exh.5 P.W. Shambey as Exh.6 and A.S.I. Police Jaro Khan as Exh.7 learned P.S.I. Vide statement Exh.8 gave up P.W. Islam being on the same point. On the application Exh. Of P.S.I. Mst. Fajri was examined as Exh.10. Learned P.S.I. Vide statement Exh.11 closed section evidence.
6. ' Statement of the appellants was recorded from Exh.12 to Exh.14 all the appellant denying the allegations against them stated that P.W. Nasiruddin is son-in-law of appellant Shitab. Gora Khan the deceased brother of Nasiruddin was also the son-in-law of appellant Shitab. P.W. Nasiruddin wanted to marry widow of Gora Khan with one Mohhi. P.W. Nasiruddin also wanted to get another daughter of appellant Shitab married at his choice. On which appellant Shitab had objected with the result appellant Shitab took both his daughters and Mst. Akbari was given to appellant Ali Muhammad and "Faisala" was referred to Nek Mards. One day prior to the incident the complainant complained to Umar Sand Police kagainst him. Umar Sand Police took appellant Shitab. On the next day appellants Ali Muhammad and Feroz were also called at P.P. And all of them were implicated in this case. P.Ws. Ghulam Muhammad and Shambey are friends of P.W. Nasiruddin and P.Q. Islam is related to him. All the appellants plead their innocence. The appellants have examined D.Ws.
7. Siddique Exh.15 and Malkha Exh. 16 defence.
8. ' Learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, convicted and sentenced the applicants as hereinbefore mentioned the appeal filed by the applicants was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and consequently applicants have filed the above petition on the grounds mentioned in the memo of petition.
9. ' Learned Advocate for the applicants in support of the above petition submitted as under:-
(a) That the case against applicants is fabricated.
(b) Both the lower Courts misread the evidence on record.
(c) That learned trial Court as well as appellate Court failed to take into consideration admitted fact that applicant No,1 was residing in the same house of complainant and as such conviction of application No,1 under section 1451. P.P.C. Is based on misreading of evidence.
10. ' In support of above submissions learned Advocate for applicants relied upon cases reported in 1982 SCM R 76 and PLD 1978 SC 929.
11. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted that there is no misreading of evidence by either Courts. He further submitted that learned appellate Court took into consideration that applicant No,1 used to stay with complainant, as this point was raised before it and then for cogent reasons upheld the judgment of the learned trial Court.
12. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court and both the impugned judgments as well as cases cited by the learned Advocate for applicants.
13. ' I find that statement of P.W. Nasiruddin (Complainant) is fully corroborated by P.W. Fajri (daughter of the applicant No,1) as well as by P.Ws. Ghulam Muhammad Makrani and P.W. Shabbay.
14. Statement of P.Ws. Are straightforward and convincing and were not at all shaken in their cross- examination. There is material contradictions in the statement of D.W. Siddique and applicant No,1 statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Similarly statement of D.W. Maljha also does not inspire confidence. I the face of such defence evidence statement of P.W. Nasiruddin complainan against whom no enmity is alleged by applicant No,1, is fully corroborate by two independent P.Ws. Namely Ghulam Muhammad and Shambey, wh are neither related to complainant nor applicants side and applicants have alleged no enmity against them at all and they both are the residen of locality, where incident is said to have taken place.
15. ' I also find that learned appellate Court has taken into consideration stand of applicant No,1, that he was residing in the house of complainant at the time of incident and after due appraisal of the evidence brought on record, disbelieved this fact and I see no reason to disagree with this finding.
16. Arrest of applicants is fully supported by yet another independent P.W. Kaley Khan, against whom no enmity at all is alleged A by any applicants. His statement has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. He has said that all the applicants were arrested from the house of complainant.
17. ' Learned counsel for applicants was unable to point out any misreading of the evidence and/or other material irregularities in judgments of both the learned lower Courts.
18. ' Therefore I find no force in the above petition, which is consequently dismissed avid the bail granted to applicants pending disposal of above petition is cancelled and the learned trial Court is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for the arrest of the applicants and on their arrest to remand them back to judicial custody to serve out remaining sentences awarded to them by both impugned judgments. However I grant benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To all the applicants in respect of their period of detention as under-trial prisoners in addition to all other remissions to which applicants may be entitled in accordance with rules.