RAJA AFRAS1AB KHAN, J.- Javed alias Kakkar appellant was convicted and sentenced to 3 years R.I.
Under section 411 PPC by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Sumra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 10 12.1989. He challenged his conviction and sentence by filing the appeal. Shortly stated the facts are that on the night between 25/26-8-1988 one Bagh Masih was done to death by some unknown culprits. A case under sections 302/460 PPC was accordingly registered against the accused. The appellant Javaid alias Kakkar, Javaid alias Goga and Ashiq Masih were arrested in the said case as accused. The accused referred to above were, however, acquitted by the learned trial Judge on 10.12.1989. During investigation of the said murder case a tape recorder, allegedly stolen from the house where the murder took place, was recovered at the instance of the appellant. On the basis of the evidence available on the record the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that recovery of the said stolen item from the appellant did justify his implication in a case under section 411 PPC. He, therefore, relying on the evidence of Ashiq Ali P.W. 8 and Muhammad Ashraf PW-10 convicted and sentenced the appellant as observed earlier. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is not a shred of evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. He states that Ghulam Masih PW-1, Sh. Maqsood Ahmad PW-2, and Mohammad Sadiq PW-3 did not support the prosecution and as such they were declared as hostile. Confronted with this situation, learned Law Officer and the learned counsel for the State were not able to refute the weighty arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant Ghulam Masih PW-1, Sh. Maqsood Ahmad PW-2, and Mohammad Sadiq PW-3 did not support the prosecution version. Ashiq Ali PW-8 is not a resident of the place from where the recovery was effected. The evidence deposed by him does not inspire confidence and as such cannot be relied upon. It is in the evidence that a number of people were present at the spot from where the recovery was effected at the instance of the appellant.
However, no one from the general public was produced as a witness. In the circumstances the case is not free from doubt. Accordingly by giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, his conviction and sentence is set aside and he is acquitted from the charge. He is already on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.