MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J: --These two Criminal Appeals No.930 of 1988 filed by Moazam Ali, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nazim and Criminal Appeal No. 905 of 1988 again filed by Muhammad Nazim arise from the judgment of learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No.9, Gujranwala, whereby he on 19-9-1988 convicted the appellants under section 392/397, P.P.C. And sentenced them to 7 years' R.I. Each and of fine of Rs.20,000 in default thereof 2 years' R.I. Each, with the direction that the fine if recovered be paid to the complainant/Bank.
2. The charge against the appellants was that they committed robbery of Rs.19,416 and other articles on 16-6-1988 at about 10-30 a.m. In National Bank of Pakistan, Sitrah Branch, Sitrah, District Sialkot by putting the employees of the Bank under the fear of instant death. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. F.I.R., Exh. PA. Was lodged by Muhammad Sadiq, gunman, P.W.1, on the same day at about 10-45 a.m. And was recorded by Ahmed Din A.S.I., P.W.7. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is two furlongs.
4. The appellants were arrested on the same day at about noon time from near Basti Kotli Baba Heera at a distance of 6-1/2 miles from the place of occurrence by Ahmed Din, A.S.I., P.W.7 in the presence of Muhammad Sadiq P.W.1 and Rashid Ahmed P.W.3. At the time of his arrest Moazam Ali was carrying stengun Exh.P.5, five live cartridges Exh.P.8/1-5, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.D. Muhammad Aslam was carrying bag Exh.P.7 containing Rs.19,416 and two black eye-covers Exh.P.9/1-2, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.F. He was also having revolver Exh.P.1 and live bullets Exh.P.2/1-2 and P.3/1-6, which were recovered vide memo Exh. P.B. At the time of his arrest Nazim appellant was having pistol Exh.P.5, five live bullets Exh.P.19/1-5 and 10 cartridges Exh.P.20/1-10, which were taken into possession vide memo Exh PC The memoranda were attested by Muhammad Sadiq P.W.1. Rashid Ahmed P.W.3 and Ahmed Din, A.S.L, P.W.7. Munawar Hussain Constable is also a recovery witness of fire-arm from Moazam Ali. Ahmed Din A.S.I., P W.7 in the, presence of Ch. Riasat Ali P.W.4 and Muhammad Nawaz (not produced) recovered motor- cycle Exh.P.10. Bag Exh.P.11, Khais Exh.P.12, 6 live cartridges Exh.P.13/1-6 and registration book Exh.P.16 from a distance of 2-1/2 k.m. From the Bank and took them into possession vide memo. Exh. P.H.
5. To prove its case prosecution produced 8 witnesses. Muhammad Sadiq P.W.1,, Muhammad Yousaf P.W.2. Rashid Ahmed P.W.3 are the eye witnesses. Muhammad Sadiq is Gunman.
Muhammad Yousaf is Manager of the Bank and Rashid Ahmed is a Cashier of the Bank. They claim to have seen the appellants duly armed with fire-arms, committing robbery in the Bank and forcibly taking away Rs.19,416 and articles from the Bank. Muhammad Sadiq P.W.1 and Rashid Ahmed P.W.3 have also supported the recovery of cash and fire-arms as stated above from the appellants. During the occurrence gun of Muhammad Sadiq P.W. Was broken. Two pieces of the gun Exh.P.6/1-2 were produced on the day of occurrence by the Manager before Ahmed Din, A.S.I.
Muhammad Sadiq P.W.1 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.2 also supported this recovery. Riasat Ali P.W.4 supported the recovery of motor-cycle and other articles, which were taken into possession vide memo Exh PH by the police. Munawar Hussain Constable is also a witness of the recovery of fire- arms from Moazam Ali appellant. He supported this recovery. Ahmed Din A.S.I. Had investigated the case. He arrested the appellants/accused and effected recoveries from them. He fully supported the prosecution case. Nazir Ahmed P.W.8 had partly investigated the case.
6. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication. They did not lead any evidence in defence. They, however, gave evidence on oath in disproof of the charge stating that they were innocent.
7. Believing the prosecution evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the F.I.R. Was not lodged at the police station but was written at the Bank after the arrest of the accused; that there were shops and buildings near the Bank where the dacoity was committed but no independent witness was produced; that about 40/50 independent persons were present at the time of arrest of the accused and recovery from them but none of them has been produced by the prosecution, that the appellants were not previously known to the eye-witnesses but no identification parade was held; that the prosecution evidence suffers from contradictions/discrepancies and that in any case, the sentence was excessive.
Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
9. We have carefully attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have reviewed the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution the statements made by the accused under sections 340 (2) and 342, Cr.P.C. And attending circumstances. We find that the 3 eye-witnesses were/are quite independent witnesses. They had no animus against the appellants, so` much so the latter were not known to them. They have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. Except for immaterial and minor contradictions/discrepancies here and there, we do not see any major contradiction or dishonest improvement in their statements. Since the appellants were arrested on the same day within 3/4 hours in the presence of Muhammad Sadiq and Rashid Ahmed, eye-witnesses, therefore, there would have been no fun in holding identification parade. Muhammad Yousaf Bank Manager, came to know of the arrest of the appellants/accused at about 3-30 p.m. He straightaway went to the place of the arrest of the appellants and saw them there. So, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, there was no occasion to hold identification parade. Furthermore, holding of identification parade in case of robbery and dacoity when the culprits are not known is not a legal requirement. There is no such provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Evidence Act, although there is no legal bar for holding such identification parade as a matter of caution. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the instant case, the? Eye-witnesses have been found absolutely dependable witnesses by us. Straightaway,, manner in which these witnesses have admitted that the F.I.R. Was written at the Bank and that some of the memos. Were also prepare(I at the Bank/Police Station and not at the place of the arrest of the 'appellants shows that they have given evidence with a motive of telling the truth, otherwise they could easily suppressed these facts and support the prosecution case as presented by the police. We find that the 3 eye-witnesses have stated nothing but truth. So, the conviction recorded by the trial Court can safely be sustained without further corroboration.
10. This brings us to the question of sentence. The appellants are students. So we feel that the sentence of 5 years' R.I. Each would meet the case. The fine of Rs.20,000 each, which obviously has to be paid by their parents is excessive.
Pursuant to the above discussion, there being a satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction, the appeals are dismissed but the sentences awarded to the appellants are reduced to 5 years' R.I.
Each and a fine of Rs.10,000 each, m F default thereof one year's R.I. Each. They shall also get the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.