' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-- This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No,VI, Bahawalpur, whereby he, on 8-11-1988, convicted Manzoor Ahmad (24/25) and Muhammad Hussain (23/24) appellants under section 392 read with section 397, P.P.C. And sentenced them to ten years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,20,000 in default thereof to further R.I. For four years.
2. The occurrence took place on 28-2-1988 at 11 a.m. Within the premises of Habib Bank Limited, Main Bazar Branch, Sadiqabad. F.I.R. Is written statement (Exh.PA.) of Nazir Ahmad, Manager, Habib Bank Limited (P.W.5), which he handed over to A.S.I. Imtiaz Ahmad on the same day at 11-45 a.m.
Formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA./1) was drawn upon the same day at 11-50 a.m. By Ghulam Mohayyud Din A.S.I.
(P.W.2). The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is one furlong.
3. The prosecution case is that at the eventful time Nazir Ahmad, Manager, Habib Bank Limited (P.W.5), Akhtar Ali (P.W.6) and Muhammad Afzal Cashier (P.W.9) and others were present in the premises of the Bank when three persons carrying fire-arms came there. Manzoor Ahmad appellant was armed with Kalashnikov and Muhammad Hussain appellant was carrying pistol in his hand. They closed the main door of the Branch from inside and threatened the persons present in the Bank with dire consequences. They snatched gun from Fa7al Karim guard. On pistol pohit they took the Bank staff and the customers present there in the strong room and got the safe of the Bank opened and took away the cash lying there. They also forcibly removed cash lying on the cash counter. They forcibly took away total amount of Rs,1,67,324. They then confined all the persons present in the Bank in the strong room and ran away taking the looted money with them.
Akhtar Ali (P.W.6) and Muhammad Afzal Cashier (P.W.9) supported the prosecution case in its entirety.
4. Both the appellants were arrested on 19-3-1988 by Muhammad Yagoob, D.S.P. (P.W.8). At the time of the arrest of Muhammad Hussain, the D.S.P. Muhammad Yacioob (P.W.8) took into possession four keys Exhs.P.1/1 to 4, Rs,95,000 Exh.P.2, Exhs.P.3/1 to 4, Exh.P.4, Exh.P.5 and wrist watch Exh.P.6 from his possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. Attested by Muhammad Akhtar H.C. (P.W.4), Muhammad Hayat Foot Constable (not produced). At the time of arrest of Manzoor Ahmad, the D.S.P. (P.W.8) took into possession five keys Exhs.P.7/1 to 5, Rs,110 Exh.P.8/1-2, Exh.P.9/1-2 vide memo. Exh.P.C. Attested by the same witnesses. The appellants were sent to judicial lock-up for the purpose of identification parade. In the identification parade held on 20-3-1988 under the supervision of Sardar Saeed Ahmad, Tehsildar/Magistrate II Class (P.W.7), the eye-witnesses correctly identified the appellants.
5. On 20-3-1988 Muhammad Hussain got recovered from a room of the house occupied by him, his National Identity Card (Exlk.P.3), currency notes valuing Rs37,000 Exh.P.11 to Exh.P.18/1-100 each Exh.P.19 to Exh.P.24/1-100 each, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. Attested by Pathan Khan (P.W.10), Abdul Aziz (not produced) and Muhammad Sadiq Inspector, Anti-dacoity Staff (P.W.13).
' On the same day, Manzoor Ahmad got recovered attache-case (P.40) containing his National Identity Card (P.41), tape-recorder (P.42) and currency notes valuing Rs,31,100 Exh.P.25 to Exh.P.32/1- 100 each Exh.P.33/1-1000, Exh.P.34/1-1000 and Exh.P.35/1-100, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G. Attested by the same witnesses.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 14 witnesses. Nazir Ahmad (P.W.5), Akhtar All (P.W.6) and Muhammad Afzal Cashier (P.W.9) have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen the two appellants committing robbery and removing cash forcibly from the premises of Habib Bank Limited, Main Bazar Branch, Sadiqabad, at the time of occurrence. Kausar Abbas (P.W.11) was produced by the prosecution to prove that the car used by the appellants at the time of the robbery was forcibly snatched by them from him sometime before the occurrence.
Muhammad Akhtar (P.W.4), Pathan Khan (P.W.10), Muhammad Yaqoob D.S.P. (P.W.8) and Muhammad Saclig, Inspector Anti-dacoity Staff (P.W.13) have deposed about the recovery of National Identity Card, tape-recorder and currency notes from the appellants. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
7. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. Neither they produced any witness in defence nor did they give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges against them. Manzoor Ahmad, however, tendered certified copies of the statements of Pathan Khan, Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Sadiq Inspector, Anti-dacoity Staff Exh.D.F., Exh.D.G. And Exh.D.H. To show that Pathan Khan (P.W.10) and Abdul Aziz (not produced), the witnesses of the recovery Memoranda Exh.P.F. And Exh.P.G., were the stock witnesses. The certified copies of the recovery memoranda in some other cases Exh.D.B. To Exh.D.E. Have also been placed on record to show that Pathan Khan (P.W.10) and Abdul Aziz (not produced) were the recovery witnesses in other cases investigated by Muhammad Sadiq, Inspector, Antidacoity Staff (P.W.13).
8. Manzoor Ahmad also produced photostat copy of his completing the second year science (Agriculture) Programme in the year 1981-82, of Sind Agriculture University, Tando Jam to show that he was a student and was preparing for the final professional examination, when he was arrested by the police.
9. Believing the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the eye-witnesses, namely, Nazir Ahmad (P.W.5), Akhtar All (P.W.6) and Muhammad Afzal Cashier (P.W.9) are not dependable witnesses, that the appellants were shown to the eyewitnesses before the holding of the identification parade; that after their arrest the appellants were brought to Sadiqabad and produced before the Magistrate; that the witnesses also live in Sadiqabad; that one of the windows of the Police Station Sadiqabad, opens towards judicial lock-up, where the identification parade was held; that some photographs were shown to the witnesses by the police before the holding of the identification parade; that the learned Magistrate had not taken proper precautions at the time of parade inasmuch as he mixed six under-trial prisoners with the two appellants at time of identification parade and as such there was a possibility of identification of the appellants per chance; that no attempt was made to hide the scar marks of the appellants and that in the circumstances of the case there is a possibility that the appellants might have been shown by the police to the witnesses before identification could be held. Conversely the learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
11. We have anxiously attended to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have reviewed the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution, statements of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the certified copies of the documents tendered by them. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. We find that Nazir Ahmad, Manager (P.W.5), Akhtar Ali (P.W.6) and Muhammad Afzal Cashier (P.W.9) are the natural witnesses of the occurrence; they had no animus against the appellants to involve them falsely in the case; that they have faced the test of cross-examination successfully; they have categorically stated that the appellants were not shown to them before the holding of the identification parade; that Sardar Saeed Ahmad, Tehsildar/Magistrate (P.W.7) had taken all precautions at the time of parade; that no objection whatsoever was raised by the appellants before the Tehsildar/Magistrate; and that had the police shown them to the eye- witnesses, the appellants would have stated so before the Magistrate. The occurrence took place in the light of the day. The culprits remained for sufficient time with the eye-witnesses; as such the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to see the appellants and that the culprits remained close to the witnesses during the occurrence that the eye-witnesses had correctly identified the appellants as culprits in the identification parade. The statements made by the witnesses are in consonance with the probabilities and materially fit in with the rest of the evidence. It seems to us that the three eye-witnesses are absolutely dependable persons and conviction can safely be recorded or upheld on their evidence without corroboration. The Magistrate has clearly stated that the window of the police station which opens towards the judicial lock-up Sadiqabad was already closed when the identification parade was held. There is no evidence to show that the accused were shown to the eye-witnesses through this window before the identification parade. In this case as many as 5 persons had picked up the appellants from amongst 8 persons at the time of the identification parade, therefore, it cannot be imagined that the 5 persons had placed their hands on the appellants coincidently. The appellants have not been sentenced under section 412, P.P.C. On the evidence of recovery witnesses, therefore, the documents tendered in defence by the appellants to show that the recovery witnesses were the stock witnesses of the police are of no help. The eye- witnesses have stated that the photos which were shown them by the police during investigation were not of the appellants. We do not see any reason to disbelieve them. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants are devoid of force and substance. For all these reasons, we are convinced that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has correctly convicted the appellants under section 392 read with section 397, P.P .C.
12. This brings us to the question of sentence. We find that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is in consonance with the nature of the crime committed by the appellants. The sentence is neither harsh nor excessive.
For what has been said above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. The appellants will, however, get benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.