Mnftakbiruddln, j.-This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 31-7-1986 passed by Mr. Muhammad Mujibullah Siddiqui, Vtb Additional Sessions Judge Hyderabad whereby appellant Qadir Bakhsh son of Noor Muhammad Khoso has been found guilty of offence punishable under section 90 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 199 read with Section 395 PPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 Ten thousand or in default to suffer further R.I. For one year. The allegations against the appellant are that on 10-12- 1983 at 10.30 A.M. He has entered the Latifabad Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan alongwith his five other companions duly armed and took away Rs. 31619/50.
2. Muhammad Saleem, the manager of Unit No. 8 of National Bank of Pakistan at Latifabad formally lodged a report on 10-12-1983 at 12 30 P M. (noon) at Latifabad Police Station and stated that he was working in the National Bank of Pakistan Unit No. 8 Latifabad and alongwith officers (named in the FIR) and Ashrafuddin and Barkat A.I the. ChowkUars who had been provided with guns and cartridges. He was sitting in his Bank Office since 0900 hours. Khalil Abmed and Mushtaq A.I were working at the cash Counter chowkidar Barkat A.I was performing his duties outside the Bank on the gate and Asharfuddin inside the B nk near the gate when at about 10.30 hours suddenly six armed persons entered the Bank from the West side door. Out of those three persons immediately caught hold of chowkidar Barkat A.I and snatched the gun and cartridges from him and pushed him and brought him inside the Bank and the remaining three persons caught hold of shewkidae Ashrafuddin and also snatchad from him gun and cartridges and made both of them to stand on one side. &howkidar Barkat A.I resisted one of the persons fired a shot at him but it did not hit and instead hit the wall and thereafter two persons entered his office. One of them was having a sten gun and the other was holding a revolver. They immediately threw the telephone apparatus on the ground and asked for the cash but he replied that the cash was not in the office but was with the Cashier. Whereupon one person stood over on him (complainant) and the other went out towards the cash counter. After a while a fire shot was heard from the cash counter. Then all of those six persons went outside the Bank and made good their escape and drove away in a white Toyota Corolla Gar of 1983 Model towards Board of Education. The car had no registration number. The culprits took away the guns and cartridges of the ehewkidurs. (The details furnished in the FIR). The Cashiers had told him that the culprits had taken away cash alongwith the drawer Latifabad Police Station had been informed on telephone about the incident and the police officer reached the spot. On verification it was found that a sum of Rs. 31619/50 was taken away by the culprits who were not known to him previously but he will identify them if they are shown to him. The culprits appeared to be young boys.
3. Inspector Malik Muhammad Hussain S.H.O. Latifabad recorded the FIR and visited the place of incident and prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The Superintendent of Police and otbes police officers also reached the place of incident. A police, team consisting of police inspectors Malik Muhammad Hussain, Khaliq Sharwani and Chand Khan was formed to trace theeJprits. On 20-12-1983 accused Qadir Bakhih and Din Muhammad were arrested from Oiddu and on the personal search a revolver was secured from Qadir Bakhsh and a bag and sten gun from the accused Din Mnhammad. The accused persons were brought to the police station and the next day (21-12-1983) they were put to identification test under the Supervision of a Magistrate Mr. Abdul Rahim (Memon) through Muhammad Saleem Barkat, Ashrafuddin and Shahid A.I. The challan was put up on 27-12- 1983 in Court. Accused Din Muhammad absconded from the police custody. Only Qadir Bakhsh faced the trial.
4. Nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They are PW. (Vfuharamad Saleem, the complainant), PW. 2 (Barkat A.I chowkigar) PW. 3 (Ashrafuddin) PW, 4 (Shahid A.I Cashier) PW 5 (Abdul Rahim Memon the Magistrate) PW. 6 (Maqsood A.I) PW. 7 (Syed Ittat A.I) PW. 8 (Raza Ahmad) and PW. 9 (Inspector Malik Muhammad Hussain, the investigating officer), Muhammad Saleem described the incident as was narrated in FIR Barkat A.I and Ashrafuddin, the chowktJars corroborated the version and Shahid A.I the Cashier stated in details what had happened in the Bank when the culprits had forced there entry in the Bank. Mr. Abdul Rahim Memon, the Magistrate, testified the fact that the accused was correctly identified by the Bank employees. Syed Ittat A.I deposed that before him the police had visited the place of occurrence and was shown the wall which was hit by the deceits and the empty cartridge was found at the entrance. Same pellets from the cash counter were secured by the police and the Mashirnam prepared at the place (objlj _U) {{URDU}} was attested by him. Raza Muhammad admitted his signature on the mashirnama of arrest of accused but did not confirm the contents thereof.
5. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. Denied the allegations put to him and to the question "Why PWs. Have deposed against you" answered that "I do not know again says that at the instance of police. He did not like to produce any defence but appeared as his own witnesses under section 340 (2) Cr. P. C. And stated that he was working as a cleaner on the truck of bis brother Khair Muhammad. Absconding accused Din Muhammad is cousin and was a student of Mehran University and was working as Telephone Operator in Telephone Exchange Jam Shoro. He went to him at about 9.00 or 9.30 A.M. (date not mentioned) and he had to deliver some cash to him He was standing outside the telephone Exchange building after sending message to Din Muhammad and in the meantime some persons came there and enquired about his antecedents and then asked him to sit in a vehicle. They brought Din Muhammad and another also and took all the three of them to Latifabad police station where third person was released and he along- with Din Muhammad was put in lock up. Police demanded bribe from them which they could not pay.
Police went to their villages for knocking out money from their elders but could not get any thing from there also and therefore they were cballaned in this case.
6. The trial court after assessing the evidence on record found the accused/appellant guilty and has sentenced him as mentioned above.
7. Mr. A. Q. Halepota, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the entire evidence on record and has contended that there is no recovery from the accused appellant and only the identification is the basis of conviction and elaborating his submission stressed on the point that the entire incident was completed in few minutes. Six persons were involved and it was difficult to memorize the features of the culprits. No description of the features of the accused were given in the FIR except that they were young boys So it was a case of bona fide mistaken identity and on this ground the conviction cannot be safely recorded as the manner in which the identification parade was held casts doubt and pointed out that PW. 2 (Barkat A.I) and PW. 4 Shahid A.I) did not identify the accused/appellant in Court while PW. 3 (Ashraffuddin) hss stated that the culprits and dummies were standing in a circle and the two culprits were hand cuffed at the time of identification test. The learned counsel was of the view that due precautions had not been taken to ensure the correct identificapetition and thus the judicial conscience does not stand satisfied as only the bank employees of the Branch were associated with the parade. The conduct of the investigating officer has not been above board and the Mashlrnama (*-U j**) {{URDU}} does m t give the names of the Dummies. The learned counsel complained that the trial court has not properly appreciated the submissions made on behalf of the accused and has not correctly interpreted the case law cited before him and relied once again the same authorities. The cases cited are Lai Pasand v. The State, PLD 1981 SG page 142 and Hafeezullah v. The State 1969 P. Cr. L. J.
Page 655.
8. We have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have not been able to pursuade ourself to concur with him. PW. Muhammad Saleem has deposed that the culprit armed with revolver kept standing near him and the one armed with Sten gun was standing in front of him. Thus he was in a position to identify the appellant (Qadir Bakhsh). Since he had kept pistol at his tample inside his office at the time of incident. This witness has further stated that the accused/appellant had searched the cabinet and the almirah of the side of his revolving chair and had made him hands up and had held him with both of his hands and started scuffle with him. He had thus sufficient time to watch the accused Qadir Bakhsh when had entered inside his chambers. The identification parade was held after ten days but the very next day the aecused was apprehended. The incident was thus fresh in his mind. This being the first incident-of his life must have created unforgetable impression in his mind. The sense of perception of the witnesses cannot be challenged. Similarly prosecution witnesses (PW. 2 and PW. 3) had identified the accused when the incident was also fresh in their minds. Later when they were examined on 22-10- 1985 they might have forgotten some features of the accused. This slip on their part is understandable and appears natural. There is thus no reason.To doubt their veraeity. The false implication is ruled out. They are independent and natural witnesses and cannot be deemed to be under the influence of the police. We have thus no reason to take a contrary view of the evidence as has been taken by trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken pains to appraise the evidence on record_ add has considered the law cited before him dispassionately and we find no justification to differ with him. The distinguishing features of the instant case have been demonstrated in the judgment and the inaptness of the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the defence in the peculiar circumstances of this case has been amply pointed out. The authorities