' Lal son of Shahzad was tried by a First Class Magistrate of Kamalia under section 411, P.P.C. For being dishonestly in possession of a stolen bullock, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, and was convicted under the said section and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Lal, convict, thereupon preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge of Toba Tek Singh who, on 26-3-1984, dismissed the same but granted the convict the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
The convict's criminal revision is now before me for disposal.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30-4-1982 Muhammad Elahi S.I. P.W.4 organized a Nakabandi on bridge Head Khichi. Hamoo P.W.2, Ali Sher P.W.3 and some foot constables were also with him. Lal, accused, was apprehended by Muhammad Elahi S.I. P.W.4 at about 10-00 p.m. When he was trying to pass over the bridge with a stolen bullock. On inquiry, the accused disclosed that he had recently stolen the bullock from one Nawaz son of Ghulam, Baloch, and that he was taking it for disposing it of, when he was apprehended. The said stolen bullock was taken into possession by the police vide memo. P.A. In the presence of Hamoo P.W.2, Ali Sher P.W.3 and Muhammad Elahi S.I.
P.W.4. He thereafter sent the complaint Exh.P.B to the Police Station, on the basis of which F.I.R.
Exh.P.B/1 was registered. The accused was challaned and finally convicted.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have also perused the record. Hamoo P.W.2 and All Sher P.W.3, who are the public witnesses, appear to be the persons who have appeared in a number of cases for the police according to their own admission.
They are not even certain whether they thumb-marked the recovery memo. Or signed it. Hamoo P.W.2 submits that he and Ali Sher P.W.3 thumb-marked the recovery memo. Exh.P.A, whereas Ali Sher P.W.3 states that he signed the same. The ownership of the bullock also appears. To be in some doubt. According to the F.I.R. Exh.P.B., the bullock was stolen from Nawaz son of Ghulam, Baloch, and the said owner appeared as P.W.1 and admitted the bullock to be his. However, Muhammad Elahi S.I. P.W.4 stated in Court that the bullock belonged to one Nawab son of Ghulam, caste Malah. There appeals to be a contradiction as regards the true owner of the stolen bullock.
The said bullock was not shown to Muhammad Nawaz P.W.1 in Court and he did not identify the stolen bullock in Court. The ownership, therefore, of the stolen bullock remains clouded in mystery.
There is also some doubt about the colour of the stolen bullock. According to recovery memo. P.A., the stolen bullock was black, but according to Ali Sher P.W.3, the same was white and had red spots. However, if this is not enough, it appears that when Hamoo P.W.2, Ali Sher P.W.3 and Muhammad Elahi S.I. P.W.4, the recovery witnesses, appeared in Court to give evidence, the stolen bullock was not shown to Ali Sher P.W.3 and Muhammad Elahi S.I. P.W.4 and they did not identify the same in Court. Only Hamoo P.W.2 identified the stolen bullock in Court, presumably the same being then present. Taking all circumstances into consideration, a cloud of doubt exists as regards the true ownership of the stolen bullock with the result that it cannot be stated with certainty that the same was stolen property. Other features in the case also throw a blanket of doubt as regards the preparation of the recovery memo. Colour of the bullock and whether all the recovery witnesses were shown the stolen bullock in Court to identify the same. In these circumstances, the case is not free from doubt, the benefit whereof shall have to go to the petitioner.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of Lal, petitioner, under section 411, P.P.C. Is set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.