Bakhsha son of Bati caste Gondal aged 29 years resident of Garh Qaim, Police Station Miana Gondal, District Gujrat, has filed this revision challenging his conviction under section 411, P.P.C.
Recorded by Magistrate 1st Class, Bhalwal, sentencing him to one year's R.I., by his order, dated 27- 2-1970 and upheld in appeal by Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 10-11-1970.
2. According to prosecution, S.I. Muhammad Arsala Khan (P.W.3) was on Nakabandi along with Ahmad Chaukidar (P.W.2) and Sultan (P.W.4) Lambardar of village Hathi Wind, on Bhera-Bhalwal Road on the night between 3/4-4-1968 when the petitioner happened to pass that way with a mare and two she-donkeys under suspicious circumstances. He was rounded up and the animals were secured under memo. Exh.P.B.. Later in the day Ahmad (P.W.1) resident of village Chawa, Police Station Bhera, appeared before the S.I. And identified the cattle as belonging to him which had allegedly been stolen three days ago, from his cattlepen. The S.I., therefore, recorded his statement Exh. P.A. And on the basis of it got a formal F.I.R. Registered at Police Station, Bhera. After usual investigation the S.I. Challaned the petitioner to Court.
3. At the trial four witnesses were examined. P.W. I Ahmad identified the animal recovered from the petitioner as his own property. P.W. 2 Ahmad Chaukidar and P.W. 4 Sultan Lambardar besides S.I.
Arsala Khan P.W. 3 deposed that on the night between 3/4-4-1968 the petitioner was found in possession of a mare and two she-donkeys belonging to P.W.1 Ahmad which the petitioner was keeping in his possession knowing or having reasons to believe that the same were stolen property.
The petition on examination under section 342, Cr.P.C., refuted the allegation but declined to produce defence. He further explained that the case was concocted against him due to enmity.
4. Learned trial Court on consideration of material on record found the petitioner guilty under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced him to one year's R.I. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge but that too was dismissed, hence this revision.
5. This revision petition was admitted to regular hearing on 8-12-1970 and on the same day sentence of the petitioner was suspended i.e., after he had served out about one month's imprisonment. This revision has come up before me for hearing after about 16 years. The petitioner herein was sent P.C., A.D., for today but he is absent. I have, therefore, examined the record with the assistance of Malik Abdul Rahman, Advocate, counsel for the State.
6. Admittedly, F.I.R. In this case was lodged after 3 days of the occurrence and also after the recovery of stolen property effected from the petitioner. The prosecution case mainly hinges on the evidence of two recovery witnesses, namely, Ahmad Chaukidar (P.W.2) and Sultan Lambardar (P.W.
4). According to Lambardar Sultan (P.W.4) the stolen animals were recovered from the petitioner at a distance of about half mile from his Dera while Ahmad (P.W.2) stated that the petitioner was rounded up and the stolen property was recovered from him at a place about 6/7 miles away from the Dera of Lambardar. This glaring discrepancy regarding the place of arrest and recovery of stolen animals from him, has, to my mind, made the whole affair as doubtful. I would not, therefore, accept the story of arrest and recovery of stolen animals effected from they petitioner in the manner stated by these witnesses. Consequently, the' conviction and sentence of the petitioner is not sustainable. In the result, I allow this revision, set aside both conviction and sentence of the petitioner recorded by the two Courts below and acquit hi in. He is on bail. He is discharged of his bail-bonds.