MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal No.297 of 1988 arises from the judgment of Judge, Punjab Special Court No.IX, Gujranwala whereby he on 10-3-1988 convicted Khadim Hussain aged 26 years under section 392 read with section 397, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 10 years' R.I.
And a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default thereof to further R.I. For two and half years with the directions that the line, if realised half of it be paid to Akhtar Ali as compensation.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he alongwith another person, robbed Car No.RID- 4900 from Akbar All P.W.2, on rifle point, on 29-8-1987, at about 5-45 a.m. In 'the area of village Attuwala at a distance of 10 miles from Police Station Kharian. The F.I.R. Exh. P.B. Was lodged on the same day at 8-30 a.m. By Akbar Ali P.W.2 and was recorded by Muhammad Safdar S.H.O./Inspector P.W.3.
3. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove its case the prosecution produced three witnesses. Akbar Ali, P.W.2 was/is a Taxi Driver.
He stated that on the eventful day, Khadim Hussain, appellant, came to the Taxi Stand, Attuwala and hired his taxi for village Dinga, He was accompanied by another man who was carrying .7 m.m.
Rifle. On reaching Dinga, Khadim Hussain went out of taxi saying that he was going to see Mian Aziz, Ex-Chairman of Town Committee Dinga. However, he returned after half an hour and sat in the taxi and asked him to drive car back to village Attuwala. At some distance, Khadim Hussain asked him to stop the car. When he stopped the car then both the appellants on rifle and carbine point, forcibly took away his taxi car, the registration book, transfer letter and his pension book were m the car at that time.
5. On 30-8-1987, Haji Gul Jahan Khan, Inspector, Police Station Bhalwal, found the stolen car of Akbar Ali on a road side, so, he took it into possession as suspected stolen property under section 550, Cr.P.C. Vide memo. Exh. P.A., which was attested by Rabnawaz, A.S.I. And Amjad Ali, Head Constable (both not produced). Muhammad Safdar P.W.3 recorded the F.I.R. Exh. P.B. On receiving telephonic message about the recovery of the car, he went to Police Station Bhalwal and took the stolen car in his possession. Khadim Hussain was arrested on 14-11-1987. On 18-11-1987, he led to the recovery of Registration Book Exh.P.1, Transfer Letter Exh.P.2 and Pension Book Exh.P.3 from his house, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.C. Attested by Akbar Ali P.W.1 and Basharat Ahmad, Constable (not produced). The recovery memo. Was prepared by Muhammad Safdar, Inspector, P.W.3.
6. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity with Muhammad Safdar S.H.O./P.W.3. He stated that he and his father had made complaint against Muhammad Safdar, S.H.O. And his father had also filed two writ petitions against him in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, so he was annoyed and has falsely involved him in many cases. In defence he tendered photostat copies of the writ petitions Exhs. D.A. And D.B. Photo copy of the contempt application Exh.
D.C. And photo copies of the applications sent against Muhammad Safdar S.H.O. And copies of the F.I.Rs. He made statement on oath in disproof of charge against him.
7. While believing the prosecution evidence and rejecting the plea of false implication raised by the appellant, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Muhammad Safdar S.H.O./Inspector P.W.3 was annoyed with the appellant; that he involved him in many criminal cases; that Akbar Ali being a taxi driver is under the influence of the police and that the recovery of registration book, pension book and transfer letter from the house of the appellant after" about four months of the occurrence is highly improbable. Conversely the learned A.A.G. And the counsel for the State have supported the judgment of the trial Court.
8. We have carefully attended to the arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties and have reviewed the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution, the statements made by the appellant under sections 340 and 342, Cr.P.C. And the documents tendered by him in defence.
We feel pursuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. From the documents including the copies of the writ petitions tendered by the appellant in his defence, it is very much obvious that Muhammad Safdar, S.H.O./Inspector had a motive to involve the appellant in cases.
The alleged stolen car was left by the culprits at some distance from the lace of occurrence and was taken into possession by Haji Gul Jahan Khan, Inspector, D.W.1 on 30-8-1987. It does not appeal to the reason that instead of leaving the documents i.e. Registration book, transfer letter and pension papers (which were of no use to the appellant) in the car as they were, he took them to his house to keep them safely, in order to make the recovery thereof possible. Since the recovery of these documents could furnish weighty evidence of his involvement in the robbery of the car, so there was no fun to keep the documents in the house. It seems to us that the recovery of these documents has been planted upon the appellant by Muhammad Safdar, S.H.O./Inspector with the connivance of the attesting witness namely Akbar Ali, complainant. As far robbery of the car, there is a solitary witness namely Akbar Ali P.W.2. He does not appear to be an absolutely dependable witness. If he could falsely depose about the recovery of the documents from the house of the appellant and be a party to the plantation of these documents upon the appellant there was no legal certainty and judicial guarantee of his being truthful on the charge of robbery of his car, against the appellant. He being a taxi driver, the influence of the S.H.O./Inspector on him is quite understandable. We feel that the rule of prudence does require independent corroboration of the statements of Akbar Ali and Safdar S.H.O. P.W.3, which is not available in the case.
The upshot of the above discussion is that there being no satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction of the appellant, the appeal is accepted and while giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.