SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.-- The respondents who were tried by the Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial No.1, under section 302/396, P.P.C. Were acquitted vide judgment dated 29- 11-1987. Not feeling satisfied, the State has challenged their acquittal through this appeal.
2. The occurrence had taken place during the night between 17th and 18th of December, 1986 when Khair Din P.W.10, Liaquat A.I P.W.11, Allah Ditta P.W.12 and Muhammad Siddiq were returning on a truck from Lahore after selling chaff. Nobody was named in the F.I.R. All the respondents were arrested on 25-1-1987. They were put to identification parade a week thereafter. Moulds had also been taken from the spot and so the track identification parade was also held.
Evidence of recovery of watch of the deceased from respondent No.3, and that of recovery of Rs.200 from each of the respondents, was also led at the trial. The respondents had denied the prosecution case and had pleaded innocence.
3. Learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of the identification parade for the reasons that the identification marks given in the F.I.R. Were not sufficient to connect any person with those and that the identification parade was held 7 days after their arrest, and that too jointly. The view formed in this regard, is in accordance with the facts on record and law, and so does not call for any interference.
The moulds were not used for comparison of the track marks of the respondents at the time of track identification parade. The identification was done by the tracker merely on the basis of his memory.
Even if it be granted that the tracker was a man of extraordinary intelligence, still the identification of tracks in this case would be unbelievable as the first-hand evidence of the tracks of culprits in the form of moulds was with the Investigating Officer, and so they should have been used.
Rejection of cracker's evidence, in the circumstances of this case, also does not call for any interference. The evidence of recovery of wrist watch which could connect one of the respondents, was not believed for the reason that receipt about sale of watch to the deceased was produced by the person who had sold the same. Receipt is to be kept by a person who purchases an article and not by the one who sells it. Learned trial Judge rightly observed that this was something unbelievable. Rejection of the evidence of recoveries, therefore, also does not call for any interference.
After having considered all aspects of the prosecution evidence, we are convinced that no interference is cabled for with the judgment of acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed being, without merits, in limine.