' The appellant, Muhammad Daud son of Dost Muhammad has moved this criminal appeal against the judgment of his conviction and sentence. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate with Section 30 Powers, Jhelum proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant to suffer three years' R.I. Under section 382, P.P.C. And two years' R.I. Under section 354, P.P.C. On 24-7-1984. It was directed by the learned trial Court that the sentences of the appellant shall run consecutively.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 4-4-1981 at about Peshiwela, the complainant Mst.
Bilqees Begum wife of Muhammad Latif went to a nearby ravine in order to wash her clothes. After washing her clothes, she started taking a bath there and in the meantime the appellant reached the spot and forcibly removed the gold ear-rings from her ears. By this act of the appellant, the right ear of the complainant was injured.On an alarm raised by the complainant, Khalid Mahmood, Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Zaman P.Ws. Reached the spot and wintessed the occurrence. They declared that they have come to help complainant. However, in the meantime, the appellant ran away with the gold ear-rings of the complainant weighing 8 Mashas of the value of about Rs,1,600. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Khalid Mahmood P.W.1, Muhammad Bashir P.W.2. Muhammad Zaman P.W.3, Mst. Bilqees Begum P.W.4, Khan Gul P.W.5, Muhammad Nazir P.W.6, Muhammad Akber Constable P.W.7 and Bahadur Shah P.W.8. The appellant while making a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation levelled against him and pleaded innocence. He took the plea that he has been implicated in the case on account of suspicion and enmity. No defence evidence was, however, led by the appellant.
3. The learned counsel contended that the F.I.R. In the case was lodged with an unexplained delay of two days. He submitted that the appellant was never subjected to identification as required by law. It is maintained that there is no evidence whatsoever to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. The learned State counsel has defended the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He urged that there is sufficient evidence to show that the appellant was correctly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Mst. Bilqees Begum P.W.4 has categorically stated in her statement that the appellant at the time of the commission of the crime had muffled his face. She deposed that at the time when she was busy in washing her clothes nobody was present there except two minor children. She clearly mentioned that she did not at all see the appellant Muhammad Daud earlier and further she did not know him.
She went on to say that even she did not know the name of the appellant and that it was Khalid Mahmood P.W.1 who told her that the accused who had ran away from the spot is in fact the appellant. She further deposed that she went to the police station and the police people told her that there was her accused and that she should identify him. She also disclosed that no Magistrate was present at the spot when she identified the appellant in the police station. In support of the statement of Mst. Bilqees Begum P.W.4, the prosecution produced Khalid Mahmood P.W.1 and Muhammad Bashir P.W.2. Khalid Mahmood P.W.1 deposed that when he reached the spot he saw the appellant while running away.
' He admitted that when he saw the appellant for the first time, he had already covered a distance of about two/three furlongs. He also mentioned that he gave up the chase of the appellant because the darkness had already set in. Similarly Muhammad Bashir P.W.3 stated that Khalid Mahmood P.W.1 saw the appellant when he was at a distance of about two furlongs away from them. He disclosed that after the chase was given up by him and Khalid Mahmood P.W.1, neither the complainant came to them nor they went to her. It is, therefore, clear from the above narration of the evidence of Khalid Mahmood P.W.1 and Muhammad Bashir P.W.2 that they were unable to identify as to who was running away after committing the crime, at such a considerable distance of two/three furlongs. In my view these two witnesses did not at all identify the accused. Similarly, the evidence of Mst. Bilqees Begum P.W.4 will show that the appellant was a complete stranger to her and that she never knew him earlier throughout her life. This being so, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This is in the evidence of Mst. Bilqees Begum P.W.4 that the appellant was shown to her by the investigating officer for the first time it the police station and he disclosed that it was the appellant who committed the crime.
The identification of the appellant by the complainant Mst. Bilqees Begum P.W.4 was never supervised by the Magistrate. This is a case of no evidence inasmuch as the matter was not reported to the police immediately after the commission of the crime. The occurrence was reported to the police after the unexplained delay of two days. The possibility of false implication of the appellant in the case cannot be ruled out. The appellant might have been implicated in the case on account of suspicion. In my view, if at all the appellant was chased hotly by the prosecution witnesses, they could easily chase him up to his village which was hardly at a distance of about two/three miles. The case in hand is full of doubt. I, therefore, proceed to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant and accordingly acquit him. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is on bail and his bail bonds stand discharged.