1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--Respondents Rab Nawaz and Muhammad Hayat were tried, for being in possession of stolen ornaments, by a Magistrate First Class, convicted under section 411, P.P.C.
2. And sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for to years. Their appeal to the Sessions Court also failed. A revision was, accordingly, preferred before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was accepted by judgment dated 8th of February, 1984, and the respondents were acquitted.
3. It was alleged by the prosecution that while investigating another case of theft information was given to Muhammad Akram, Sub-Inspector, on 23rd of May, 1982, that the respondents in Bazar Sarafan, Rawalpindi, were attempting to sell gold-ornaments upon which they were apprehended and the ornaments from their possession were seized. Subsequently on 28th of May, 1982, an F.I.R.
4. Was lodged by Waqar Ahmad, a resident of Chib Garan, district Abbottabad, at Police Station Banni, Rawalpindi, with regard to the theft of these gold-ornaments and some others valued at Rs.
5. 40,000 about a month earlier, that is, 30th of April, 1982. In the investigation of the case Muhammad Hussain, who was accompanying the Sub-Inspector when the information was conveyed to him, figured as a principal witness and apparently was interested in the recovery of the stolen articles in the other case which was being investigated. Although these respondents were known to him yet he gave the impression that they were strangers to him.
6. The trial Court after recording the evidence of Waqar Ahmad, the complainant, Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Akram recorded the conviction and sentence as afore stated which was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi.
7. The High Court, however, while re-assessing the evidence of Muhammad Hussain held that he had falsified in stating that he did not know the respondents from before, and it was the Police Officer who had got the information about them. This is not all. He had, in connection with the Case No. 111 of 1982, earlier complained against these to respondents as being criminals and had requested that they be joined in the investigation of that case for getting relevant information. It was, therefore, in the opinion of the High Court, that he had offered himself to become a recovery witness which was not without a purpose in the background of the earlier case as he wanted to falsely implicate the respondents. The appellate Court, in its opinion, had failed to give due effect to the role of this witness which transpired from the evidence of the Police Officer, and erroneously brushed it aside holding that he had made a concession in favour of the respondents, although whatever he stated was after he had consulted the diary of the case No. 111 of 1982 on the next day while under cross-examination. Another feature which weighed with the High Court was the denial of Muhammad Akram (P.W. 4) of the fact that after securing the ornaments they had, in the shop of Mahboob Jewellers, prepared the relevant document: after weighing the gold-ornaments. In this respect he was also held to have lied, and, accordingly, the High Court was not satisfied as to the recoveries of the articles as he was held not to be a reliable witness.
8. As to how the respondents were picked out, the High Court held that the evidence was also discrepant. Muhammad Akram (P.W. 4), Sub-Inspector, while being examined deposed that the person who had given the information had not come alongwith him to the Bazar Sarafan and that he did not also know the respondents from before. In this context, he further stated that neither Muhammad Hussain nor Javaid nor any one who had accompanied him had shown to him the respondents, which was again a mysterious circumstance as there was no material on record to show as to how they were singled out. The High Court, accordingly, held that because of the previous association of Muhammad Hussain in the earlier theft case Muhammad Akram (P.W. 4) had aligned with him to falsely involve the respondents. His evidence was also held to be not reliable.
9. The other factors which the High Court took note of were that Iftikhar, who had purchased the ornaments, was known to Muhammad Hussain (P.W. 1) for many years before; that Muhammad Idris who claimed to have made the ornaments was the son of the sister of Muhammad Hussain as well as his son-in-law, which again was a significant feature in the context of Muhammad Hussain's plea in the other case that these respondents should be joined in the investigation; that the ornaments should also have been made by his own relative for which no regular cash memo was given; and, lastly, that Waqar Ahmad the owner of the ornaments should orally give the details of the stolen articles and their weight. Such features, in the opinion of the High Court, adversely affected the truthfulness of the prosecution case and went a long way to establish that all this was manipulated.
10. One salient feature struck us while the case was being argued and that is, as to how Waqar Ahmad, the complainant, was discovered and called from his residence when there was no material on record to show as to whom the articles belonged. Waqar Ahmad also failed to lodge a report until after a month which feature again is highly suspicious as no one will remain silent for such a long the if, at all, he had lost valuable gold-ornaments. His explanation that he was trying to make inquiries is absurd on the face of it.
11. Having examined the evidence also and the reasons given by the High Court, we are of the view that the respondents were rightly acquitted.
12. Accordingly, the petition is without force, and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.