MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J: -- Bashir (26), Amir Hussain (25) Muhammad Ali (25), Shafique (21) and Qais Khan (31) appellants were tried by Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial No.1, Lahore and vide judgment dated 10-12-1988 convicted and sentenced as under:--- Bashir Amir Hussain and Muhammad Ali Under section 392/397, P.P.C. 7 years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.2,000 each or in default thereof six months' R.I. Each.
Qais and Shafique Under section 412, P.P.C. 3 years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.2,000 each or in default thereof 6 months'
R.I. Each.
They have filed separate appeals. We propose to dispose of the same by a single judgment.
2. There was robbery at the house of Muhammad Rafiq complainant (P.W.1) at 9 p.m. On 11-1-1988 at a distance of 3 miles from Police Station Sadar, Kasur. The complainant came across Ghulam Farid Inspector (P.W.5) at Katchery Chowk, Kasur at 10 p.m. And gave the version in writing (Exh.P.A.) and on its basis formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.A./1) was registered at 10-10 p.m., by Muhammad Mukhtar A.S.I.
(P.W.4).
3. According to the F.I.R. The complainant was present at his shop when three persons (whose features have been given) armed with a carbine, a revolver and a dagger caught hold of him, searched his person and removed Rs. 2,246 from the drawer of his table. He was then taken to his residential portion and a box broken and therefrom gold ornaments removed. His hands were tied and the culprits ran away. His were untied his hands whereafter he raised alarm attracting Hashim Ali, Muhammad Javaid, Ahmad Ali (given up P.Ws.). It is claimed in the F.I.R. That the culprits had been seen running in the electric light and they could be identified by the complainant and his were Nasreen Kausar (P.W.2).
4. Ghulam Farid S.H.O. (P.W.5) investigated the case on 17-1-1988. He received a secret information that three suspicious persons were present in Chowk Daulewala, he conducted a raid and arrested Bashir, Amir Hussain and Muhammad Ali appellants. Bashir was carrying pistol (P.11), Amir Hussain a dagger (P.12) and these were taken into possession vide memos. (Exhs. P.E. And P.F.). Muhammad Ali on interrogation on 1-2-1988 got recovered revolver (P.17), which was secured vide memo. (Exh.
P.T). On 30-1-1988 Bashir appellant got recovered gold ornaments (P.1/1-4) and (P.7/1-2) and Amir Hussain got recovered ornaments (P.3 and P.4). These were secured vide memos. (Exhs. P.M. And P.L.). On the same day Muhammad Ali appellant got recovered ornaments (P.1/1-2) and (P.5) vide memo. (Exh. P.K.).
5.This very S.H.O. Arrested Qais appellant on 26-1-1988 from Kasur. He was having pistol (P.13) and two cartridges (P.14/1-2), which were secured vide memo. (Exh. P.J.). On 1-2-1988 he recovered dagger (P.16) from Shafique appellant, which was taken into possession vide memo. (Exh. P.S.). On the same day Qais appellant also got recovered golden ornaments (P.6/1-2, P.6/3-4, P.8, P.9 and P.18) vide memo. (Exh. P.U.) and Shafique led to recovery of gold ornaments (P.2, P.8/1-3, P.10 and P.15) vide memo. (Exh.P.R.). The recoveries from the appellants referred to above have only been stated to by Ghulam Farid Inspector S.H.O. As Muhammad Ashiq and Muhammad Nisar P.Ws. Of recoveries were given up.
6. Bashir, Muhammad Ali and Amir Hussain appellants were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate by the Inspector and were sent on judicial remand on 18-1-1988. The Inspector in clear terms stated that they were asked to cover their faces as they were to be put to identification parade in jail. He then got identification parade held in jail on 20-1-1988, which was conducted by Mr. Manzar Saeed M.I.C. (P.W.3). Muhammad Rafiq complainant and his were Nasreen Kausar (P.Ws. 1 and 2) took part in the identification parade. The former picked up all the three namely Bashir, Amir Hussain and Muhammad Ali as the culprits while Nasreen Kausar was only able to pick up Bashir and Muhammad Ali.
7. The eye-witness account was given by Muhammad Rafiq complainant and his were Nasreen (P.W.12), the arrest of all the appellants and recoveries of weapons and the robbed property is stated to by Ghulam Farid Inspector (P.W.5). After the arrest Bashir, Amir Hussain and Muhammad Ali were sent to judicial remand and their identification parade was held under the supervision of Manzar Saeed, Magistrate (P.W.3) in which Bashir Ahmad, Amir Hussain and Muhammad Ali appellants were picked up as the actual culprits.
8. In their statements at the close of the trial Muhammad Ali and Amir Hussain appellants pleaded that they had been got falsely involved by Sharif of Khaiwal who was a gambler and a pay-master to the police. Shafique stated that he was employed with the complainant before the present occurrence, the complainant suspected his relation with his were and was falsely involved. Bashir appellant ascribed his involvement to friendship with Shafique appellant. Qais appellant pleaded that Javaid P.W, was inimical to him and so had got him falsely involved. Ahmad Ali who was cited as a P.W. In the case wits produced in defence as (D.W.1). In cross-examination he showed ignorance whether a robbery had taken place at the shop and house of the complainant. He learnt that he had been cited as an eye-witness and yet did not inform any higher police officer nor made any application that he had been wrongly cited as such. He is such a person that he even claimed friendship with the complainant for the last 10/12 years and yet had come forward to say that he did not know whether robbery had been committed at the house of the complainant. This part of the statement was in contradiction with the position taken in examination-in-chief that no occurrence had taken place on the shop of the complainant on 11-1-1988. He seems to be a totally false witness.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellants had not been identified at the spot and the identification parade was held after many days of the order in this behalf. But there is nothing on the record to indicate that before the identification parade the appellants were produced in any Court or the witnesses had any chance to see them. Both the complainant and Nasreen Kausar are independent and disinterested witnesses vis-a-vis all the appellants except Shafique who admittedly was removed from employment since a few months before the occurrence. It has not even been suggested to the two eye-witnesses that Shafique was suspected of illict liaison. The very fact that Nasreen Kausar was put in the witness-box shows the bona fides of the complainant and the hollowness of the allegation of illicit connection raised by Shafique appellant for the first time in his statement at the close of the trial. Rafique had correctly identified Bashir, Amir Hussain and Muhammad Ali as the culprits and Mst. Nasreen Kausar correctly picked up Bashir and Muhammad Ali. The charge was thus correctly concluded against these appellants under section 392/397, P.P.C. The recovery of the robbed ornaments is also proved from Qais and Shafique appellants from the statement of Ghulam Farid Inspector. While coming through his statement we do not rind that he was acting partially or in a biased manner.
We, therefore, see no force in the appeals, which fail and are hereby dismissed.