' Asadullah alias Sadullah son of Muhammad Ali Khan, aged 51 years, his brother-in-law Mushtaq, aged 41 years and Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala, aged Si years, both sons of Doley Khan, his nephew Muhammad Ashraf son of Barkat Ali, aged 36 years, Tufail Muhammad alias Tufaila son of Ghulam Muhammad, aged 25 years, and Mehr Shah son of Ganj Bakhsh, aged 71 years, have been convicted under section 302/149, P. P. C. For the murder of Khurshid and each of them was sentenced to transportation for life, vide judgment dated the 27th of April 1971, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. They were also convicted under section 148, P. P. C. And sentenced to two years' R.
1. Each. The sentences awarded to them have been ordered to run concurrently. The appeal of the convicts except Tufail Muhammad alias Tufaila is before me which is being disposed of by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place at sun-rise time (6 a.m.) on the 9th of July 1968, in Chak No, 130 Janubi, at a distance of 8 miles from Police Station Sillanwali, District Sargodha. Statement (Exh. P.
G.) was made by Abdul (P. W. 6), brother of the deceased, to Ghulam Qadir S. I. (P. W. 14), on the same day at 12-35 p.m. In Chak No, 121 G. B. Which is at a distance of 8/9 miles in the North from the place of occurrence as well as from Police Station, Sillanwali, where Ghulam Qadir S.
1. Was stated to be on investigation duty. Formal F. I. R. (Exh. P.
0./I) based on this statement, was registered at Police Station, Sillanwali at 4 p.m. On the same day by Sarfraz Khan N. M. (P. W. 4).
3. The motive for crime as set up by the prosecution is that Mehr Shah appellant while drunk had behaved in a disorderly manner in the village and against his behaviour a report was lodged with the police by the deceased on the 13th of June 1958. Besides this incident there is a long history of criminal litigation of the appellants against the partisans of the deceased.
4. The eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution in this case are Abdul (P. W. 6) brother of the deceased, Mehndi Hassan (P. W. 8), a shopkeeper, not mentioned as an eye-witness in the F. I. R., but stated to be a partisan of the complainant party, Niamat All (P. W. 9) also stated to be a partisan of the complainant party, and inimical towards the appellants ; and Bashir Ahmed (P. W.
10), employer of the deceased. Muhammad Ashraf son of the deceased had been cited as an eye- witness in the F. I. R. And was produced before the Committing magistrate but was given up as unnecessary at the trial. However, he was got examined as C. W.
1.
5. The appellants were arrested on the 11th of July 1968.
' The recoveries in this case are not of any corroborative value. However, these are as follows : gun P. 6 and five five cartridges recovered fom Asadullah appellant and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. F., lathi P. 5 (not blood-stained) recovered from Mushtaq appellant and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. E., lathi P. 2 not (blood-stained) recovered from Muhammad Ashraf appellant and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. A. Lath! P. 4 (not blood-stained recovered from Tufail Muhammad and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. D., and khunda P. 3 (not bloodstained) recovered from Mehr Shah appellant and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.
C. The attesting witnesses of these recoveries are Arsala Khan S. I. (P. W. 7) and Sardar Ahmad (P.
W. 5) also stated to be a partisan. Hamit Khan, the third attesting witness was not produced. It may be noted that no blood-stained earth was picked up from the spot in this case nor there are any crime empties.
6. Dr. Abdul Shakoor (P. W. 1) performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at 3 p.m. On the 10th of July, 1968, and found on his person 35 injuries in the form of contusions, abrasions, contused wounds, on the head, forehead, face, shoulders, neck, right and left temples, eyes, arms, chest, buttocks, thighs, feet, knee-joints and elbows. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock produced by multiple injuries on the body of the deceased collectively. All the injuries had been caused by blunt weapon. It may be pointed out that the deceased had sustainted no fire-arm injury nor incised injury which could have been caused by a khunda.
7. The appellants in their statements before the trial Court totally denied having participated in the occurrence. They disowned the recoveries made from them except gun P.
6. Which was licensed in the name of Asadullah appellant and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity of the complainant faction. They also produced Ch. Lftikhar Hussain Naib Moharrir of Police Station, Sillanwali as D. W. 1 to prove the F, I. R.'s establishing the enmity of the P.
Ws. Against the appellants and their partisanship.
8. In the F. I. R. The occurrence is reported to have taken place in the following manner : on the fateful day Abdul P. W. And Muhammad Ashraf (son of the deceased who had been given up) were coming together towards the chowk of Chak No, 130 Janubi when they noticed that the appellants and Tufail Muhammad armed with sotas and Asadullah appellant armed with gun had come there. The deceased had gone to the chowk for taking fire. The appellants shouted at him and after abusing him said to him that the deceased had given evidence before the Sillanwali Police against Muhammad Iqbal and Mehr Shah for being goondas. Thereafter, Mehr Shah appellant gave a dang blow to the deceased which fell on his head. Abdul P. W. Thereupon raised alarm on which Assadullah appellant shouted at them loudly that let the deceased be lifted from there and taken to their house for murdering him. In the meantime, Bashir Ahmad (P. W. 10) and Niamat All (P. W. 9) had also been attracted to the scene of occurrence. The P. Ws. Went on raising alarm but Asadullah appellant pointing his gun towards them threatened them not to come near. Thereafter, all of them took the deceased to the house of Muhammad Ashraf appellant in order to murder him.
The deceased was taken inside the have!! Of Muhammad Ashraf appellant and there was beaten by dangs, and hit by gun-fire until he was murdered. While the appellants were beating the deceased inside the haveli the occurrence was witnessed by Bashir Ahmad, Niamat Ali and Abdul P. Ws.
9. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides in detail and have carefully perused the record.
The testimony of Muhammad Ashraf (C. W. 1) son of the deceased read alongwith that of Ch. Iftikhar Hussain (D. W. 1) indicates that the parties were inimical and hostile to one another. It is also borne out by the record that they had a long history of criminal litigation, the appellants being on one side and the partisans of the deceased being on the other. The eye-witnesses in this case, therefore, are partisan and interested. Their testimony can only be accepted if it is corroborated by independent evidence which is not forthcoming in the present case as the evidence of recoveries is of no corroborative value. What one is left with is the tainted testimony of the eye-witnesses against the appellants. At any rate, even the version given by the prosecution of the occurrence is rather strange. In the F. I. R. It is stated by Abdul P. W., brother of the deceased, that the appellants attacked the deceased in the village chowk and Mehr Shah appellant gave him a clang blow on the head. The occurrence, according to him, was witnessed by himself, Niamat Ali, and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. As well as Muhammad Ashraf C. W. However, in the statements before the trial Court some of these witnesses had stated that Mehr Shah appellant had given a blow on the head of the deceased with a khunda which he carried. Again in the F. I. R. It is stated that the deceased was done to death by the appellants with clangs, and he was also fired at. The account of the occurrence given in the F. I. R. Is in conflict with the medical evidence for there is neither any incised injury on the person of the deceased nor he has sustained any fire-arm injury. However, it is not clear from the account given in the F. I. R. As to whether only Niamat Ali and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws.
Had seen the second part of the occurrence. The F. I. R. Is silent on this point. But before the trial Court, the prosecution version is that first part of the occurrence i,e, lifting of the deceased from the village chowk and one injury having been caused to him on the head by Mehr Shah appellant was witnessed by Abdul, Niamat All and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. And Muhammad Ashraf C. W. The F. I. R.
Does not mention the name of Mehndi Hassan P. W. As an eye-witness. He was introduced subsequently and the only explanation given by Abdul P. W. For not mentioning him in the F. I. R. Is that he forgot to do so. According to the statements made in the trial Court by the P. Ws., Niamat All and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. Followed the appellants when they took the deceased to the house of Muhammad Ashraf appellant for the purpose of murdering him. But Abdul, Mehndi Hassan P. Ws.
And Muhammad Ashraf C. W. Remained in the chowk and did not follow them. Thereafter, the prosecution version is that after 1/ or 2 hours Niamt Ali and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. Returned to the chowk to inform the other P. Ws, that the appellants had murdered the deceased inside the house of Muhammad Ashraf appellant and then Abdul P. W. Proceeded to the Police Station to lodge a report. This version is strange in more than one ways. Firstly, it is difficult to understand as to why only Niamat Ali and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. Followed the appellants and not his brother and son, namely, Abdul P. W. And Muhammad Ashraf C. W. Secondly, it is difficult to accept that they waited in the chowk for I/ or 2 hours during which period the appellants gave beating to the deceased in the house of Muhammad Ashraf appellant and when they had killed him only then Niamat Ali and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. Returned to the chowk to inform Abdul P. W. And Muhammad Ashraf C. W. That the deceased was murdered by the appellants. Obviously, if the appellants had taken the deceased to the house of one of them for murdering him, the ;,on and the brother of the deceased could have not remained in the chowk. They should have followed them. If they were afraid of their lives, then during 1/ or 2 hours they could have got assembled the whole of the village and taken many other helpers to the house of Muhammad Ashraf appellant where the deceased was being killed. Their behaviour is most unnatural. Apart from this there are material discrepancies in their statements i,e, There is no consistency in the account of the eye-witnesses as to whether the deceased was given a khunda blow on the head by Mehr Shah appellant or a danda blow.
Similarly, the version in the F. I. R. Is to the effect that even fire-arm was used at the deceased whereas subsequently in order to bring the statements of the P. Ws. In conformity with the medical evidence, the position taken by Niamat Ali and Bashir Ahmad P. Ws. Was that after having killed the deceased with dang blows, the the appellants fired in the air. This also makes the version quite improbable.
' Further, it is difficult to understand why Abdul P. W. Went to Chak No, 121/G. B. To lodge the report, i,e, the place being at a distance of 8/9 miles in the north of the place of occurrence as well as from Police Station, Sillanwali. According to him, he did not go to Sillanwali because someone (not produced as P. W.) had informed him that no police officer was present at Sillanwali Police Station, although it is on the record that there were more than one police officer attached to Police Station Sillanwali. The occurrence took place at about 6 a.m., but the statement of Abdul P. W. Was recorded at 12-35 p.m. The delay in lodging the report also makes the prosecution story doubtful.
' The defence version is that the deceased was a badmash, that he was murdered outside the village by some unknown assailants, unwitnessed by any one and that his dead body was thrown into the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Ashraf appellant. It may be noted that there is no bloodstained earth picked up in this case to deterinine the venue of the occurrence. It is, therefore, not possible to say definitely as to where the deceased was done to death. It is also not clear that if the appellants wanted to kill the deceased, why did they not kill him in the chowk. But if they had lifted the deceased from the chowk, brought him to the house of Muhammad Ashraf appellant and murdered him there, then they could have subsequently thrown the dead body of the deceased outside in the street instead of leaving it in the courtyard of Muhammad Ashraf appellant. The defence version, therefore, is that the appellant, had been falsely implicated in this case because the P. Ws. Were all inimical and hostile towards them besides being interested and partisan.
' I have carefully considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants. The prosecution version of the occurrence raises many doubts. According to the site plan, there is a broken wall on one side of the courtyard of Muhammad Ashraf appellant. It is reasonably probable that the body of the deceased was thrown into the courtyard from there, even if it be assumed that the door to the courtyard was bolted from inside. In the light of what has been discussed above, it is doubtful if any of these eyewitnesses had really seen the occurrence for even according to the prosecution version they came to the village chowk as chance witnesses. Further, since they are partisan and interested, it would not be safe to rely on their testimony unless and until it finds independent corroboration. But there is no corroborative evidence in this case. The version given in the F. I. R. Is certainly in conflict with the medical evidence, since the testimony of these interested witnesses is uncorroborated, in my opinion, it would not be safe to rely on them. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court should have given the benefit of doubt to the appllants which 1 hereby given to them. Their conviction and sentences are accordingly set aside and they are acquitted. Their appeal is accepted. They shall be released from jail forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
10. I note that Tufail Muhammad alias Tufaila, one of the co-convicts, has not filed an appeal, but relying on Gnulam Mustafa v. The State (1) as I am acquitting all the appellants in this case by giving them the benefit of doubt. Tufail Muhammad alias Tufaila co-convict who has not preferred an appeal and whose case is identical is also given the benefit of doubt, his conviction and sentences are likewise sot aside and he is acquitted. He shall be released from jail forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
Appeal accepted. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1960 Lah. 290 {{FOOT NOTE}} 1975 P Cr. L J 526 [Karachi] &fore Abdul Hayee Kureshi, J NASEE R ARMED-Appellant versus This STATE-Respondent Criminal Appeal No, 282 of 1972, decided on 28th December 1973.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -- S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5[2]-[Trap easel-Evidence, corroboration of-Members of raiding party not over-hearing conversation between accused and complainant-Evidence of complainant uncorroborated-Circumstances of accused's concern with mutation proceedings started by complainant, lodging of report with police regarding demand of bribe for same purpose, recovery of tainted money from accused, coupled with true evidence of prosecution witnesses without any allegation of enmity or hostility-Held: Sufficient corroboration- Conviction and sentence maintained in circumstances of case. [p. 53014 A. Al. Khoja for Appellant. I asihuddin for the State.
Date of hearing : 5th December 1973.
' The appellant Naseer Ahmed was tried by the Special Judge-cum. Enquiry Officer, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur, for offences under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and convicted of the said offences and sentenced to R. I. For three months and to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.
' Aggrieved by this judgment of the Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer, the appellant has filed an appeal through Mr. A. M. Khoja, Advocate who has appeared for him and the State has been represented before me by Mr. Fasihuddin.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the father of complainant Nawab owned land in Deh Sukhpur in Taluka Sakrand of the Nawabshab district. After the death of the father of the complainant the latter was titled to inherit from his father. It seems that there was some dispute in lotion to ownership of survey Nos. 402, 403, 404, 407, 389, 391 and 624 in e said Sukhpur Deh which necessitated the filing of a suit by complainant Nawab Khan in the Court of Civil Judge at Nawabshah. This suit was decreed the 31st August, 1965 on admission of the defendants. In the result the impalement Nawab Khan was entitled to 1/3rd of the property in dispute. Seems that complainant Nawab Khan made various applications to the Mukhtiarkar of Sakrand Taluka, requesting for mutation in the Record-of rights. 1 hree out of such applications have been produced on record and is same are dated 14th May, 1966, 14th June, 1969 and 22nd September, )69. Some correspondence and Rubkaris have been placed on record and to same indicate that out of the survey numbers mentioned by me above, Nos. 402, 403 and 404 were found to be Government property. Besides, survey No, 407 was found to be the property of one Ghulam Rasool hatti. In like manner survey Nos. 389 and 391 were also found to be ending in the names of Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Lakhmeer and Abdullah Khan. However, it appears from the documents that have been laced on record, that the complainant Nawab Bhatti was paying the revenue assessm ent in respect of survey No, 389 and such survey number was the abject-matter of litigation in the civil Court where the complainant had btained a decree in regard to such survey number. Suffice it to say that I spite of the civil Court decree the Revenue Record was not mutated so that the complainant Nawab Khan made an application addressed to the registrar of the High Court on the 17th of February, 1971 complaining that the decree of the civil Court was not being obeyed by the Revenue authorities and therefore, action in the nature of contempt of Court be 'ken against the Revenue authorities. Be that as it may, the case before s shows that the complainant was interested in obtaining mutation of the record of Rights in his favour on the basis of the civil Court decree and le same was not being mutated by the Revenue authorities.
3. The prosecution case then is that the complainant Nawab Khan roached appellant Naseer Ahmed who was the Tapedar of the beat ithin which the disputed survey numbers were situate, and asked him to 'singe the Revenue Record in his name but the appellant demanded a sum Rs, 2,000 as illegal gratification for complying with the demand of the impalement. It appears that there were negotiations between the contaminant and the appellant and this demand of Rs, 2,000 was reduced to s. 1,200 and the complainant was asked by the appellant to pay him s. 600 on the day following the conclusion of these negotiations, and the dance of Rs, 600 was to be paid later.
To the same day which is 31st August, 1970 at 1 p. m. The complainant reported to the Circle Officer Antiarruption, Nawabshah and a first information report was registered. In his first information report the complainant had stated that the appellant A agreed to receive a sum of Rs, 600 from him on the following day viz. The 31st of August, 1970 either in the house of the appellant at Nawabah or in the Taluka Office at Sakrand. On the following day viz. On the t September, 1970, the Anti-Corruption Officer requested Mr. Pir Bux Head Munshi and 3rd Class Magistrate to supervise the trap. Two rshirs namely P. W. Abdul Sattar, and Ghulam Hyder, were also called witness the trap proceedings. In their presence a sum of Rs, 600 was paid complainant Nawab Khan and a mashirnama in regard to such entrustment s prepared. The trap party consisting of the complainant, the AntiTruption Officer, the Magistrate, and the two mashirs thereafter proceeded the house of the appellant situated in New Abadi GoliMar at Nawabshah. This happened in the morning hours. The complainant went upto the house of the appellant and returned and stated before the trap party that the appellant had gone out of the town and was likely to return in the morning. The trap proceedings were thereafter postponed until the same evening. At about 4.30 p.m. The entire party again went to the house of the appellant at Nawabshah. At that time the complainant alongwith mashir Ghulam Hyder entered the Otaq of the appellant, the door whereof was opened. The appellant received Rs, 600 from the complainant and put the same in the fold of his loin cloth. Mushir Ghulam Hyder who had accompanied complainant Nawab Khan to the Otaq of the appellant gave a signal to the raiding party, and the raiding party entered the house of the appellant. The complainant informed the Anti-Corruption Officer that the appellant had kept the money in the fold of his loin cloth. On search the same amount was recovered and a mashirnama was prepared.
' After the completion of the trap proceedings Muhammad Anwar, the Circle Officer, Anti- Corruption secured some correspondence from the office of the Mukhtiarkar of Sakrand and on completion of the remaining formalities concerning the case in the nature of obtaining sanction ete. The appellant was sent up to stand his trial in the Court of Special Judge-cum Enquiry Officer, Sukkur and he has been convicted of the offences alleged against him.
4. The prosecution at the trial examined complainant Nawab, Magistrate Pir Bux, mashirs Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Anwar, the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption.
' In the statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. The appellant denied the prosecution case and stated that the tainted money had not been recovered from his person but was secured from behind the door of the room wherein he resided. He went on to state that the place from where the money was recovered was not in his exclusive or conscious possession and was accessible to everyone. The appellant further stated that the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him because the complainant Nawab Khan was annoyed with him on account of the complainant's failure to have the khata mutated in his name. He further stated that he had taken over charge of Tapo Jamalkurio only on the 19th December, 1970 and the case of mutation was already pending. He went on to state that the old Revenue Record had never been handled by him because the same was lying in the High Court where a Second Appeal arising out of the civil decree that the complainant had obtained in his favour was pending. The appellant further stated that the complainant had threatened him that in case the Revenue Record was not mutated in his name he would cause some trouble for him. The appellant also produced a copy of the statement of Abdul Sattar mashir under section 164, Cr. P. C. The appellant also examined three defence witnesses, namely, Wali Muhammad, Taj Muhammad and Muhammad Usman. Of the three defence witnesses Wali Muhammad was a clerk in the Taluka Office, Sakrand and he produced some correspondence between the Mukhtiarkar and the Tapedar Incharge of the beat where the disputed land was situated. Taj Muhammad again is a Tapedar of Tapo Jamalkurio and he had produced record in respect of survey Nos. Which were the subject-matter of the civil suit that the complainant had filed. The last prosecution witness Muhammad Usman was a clerk in the Civil Court of Nawabshah who produced the application which the complainant had sent to the Registrar of High Court requesting the High Court to take action against the Revenue authorities for contempt because the Revenue authorities has not mutated the record in accordance with the civil Court decree, that had been passed in favour of the complainant.
5. On a perusal of the evidence of the complainant, I find that he has given very convincing and true evidence in the case. He has clearly stated all the facts in relation to the transaction leading to the laying of the trap and recovery of the tainted money from the appellant. There can be no doubt that the complainant was interested in obtaining mutation of the Revenue Record in his favour on the basis of decree that he Had obtained from the civil Court. In fact three applications were also produced on the record to show that since 1965, the complainant had been making repeated requests to the Revenue authorities to mutate the Revenue record in his favour on the basis of the decree. It is also very evident that in spite of the civil Court decree and the various applications that the complainant had made for the mutation of the record, the same was not mutated in his favour.
The complainant has further stated that he made repeated requests for mutation of the record and ultimately contacted the appellant who was the Tapedar of the range within which the disputed land was situate. The appellant made a demand of Rs, 2,000 for compliance with the request of the complainant, but this amount was ultimately reduced to Rs, 1,200 and it was agreed between the complainant and the appellant that out of this agreed amount of Rs, 1,200 a sum of Rs, 600 would be paid to the appellant on the following day viz. On the 1st of September, 1970. The complainant thereafter, did not wait and went straight to the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment and lodged a report which was recorded on the 31st of August, 1970. In this report the complainant had clearly stated that the appellant had agreed to take the money either at his house at Nawabshah or in the Taluka Office at Sakrand. Thereafter, the complainant along-with the trap party proceeded to the house of the appellant at Nawabshah and this was in the morning hours. The appellant was not found present in the house so that the complainant came and gave such information to the trap party and the raid was repeated in the evening at 4.30 p.m. At that time the complainant alongwith mashir Ghulam 1.1der entered the house of the appellant who was present there and the complainant paid the amount to the appellant which was kept by the latter in the fold of his loin cloth. The trap party thereafter entered the house of the appellant at Nawabshah and the complainant at once informed the Anti-Corruption Officer that the appellant had kept the money in the fold of his loin cloth and the money was indeed recovered from there. In reaard to the recovery of the money, the complainant is completely supported by the Magistrate Mr. Pir Bux, mashir Abdul Sattar and the Circle Officer Anwar Ahmed.
' The appellant in his statement had stated that the money was recovered from his house but not from his person. In cross-examination of the witnesses he had suggested a defence that this money was found to be lying behind the door of the courtyard. Such suggestions in cross- examinations were denied by each and every witness. I have no hesitation in believing the prosecution evidence in regard to the money having been found from the person of the appellant and I disbelieve the defence of the appellant that the money was recovered behind the door of the house. There is only the word of the appellant on that point and I am not inclined to rely on that suggestion.
' It has, however, been argued by Mr. Ali Mohammad Khoja, the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant had earlier given threats to the appellant that in case the appellant did not mutate the revenue record in favour of the complainant he would implicate him in some case or cause some harm to him. As it is the complainant had denied having given any threats to the appellant but I cannot believe such allegation as is made by the appellant because if the complainant had earlier given threats to the appellant it would be most unnatural and rather unusual that the appellant would allow the complainant to enter into his house. The position that is clearly established on record and is not even disputed by the appellant is that the trap party entered the house of the appellant and at that time the complainant was present in the house. This would show that the complainant had never given any threats to the appellant.
' The prosecution story however, is that Ghulam Hyder who was one of the mashirs had gone with the complainant to the house of the appellant and that it was this mashir who had given a signal to the trap party to come in the house; and recover the tainted money. Mashir Ghulam Hyder however, has not been examined. In any case there is nothing on the record to indicate as to why mashir Ghulam Hyder was not examined. However, this point is not of any substantial nature because rnashir Ghulam Hyder was also to give evidence only on the point of recovery of the tainted money from the appellant. In so far as the recovery of the tainted money is concerned, I find that the evidence of the complainant is very strongly corroborated by a Magistrate, the Circle Officer of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, and the co-rnashir Abdul Sattar. Each one of these witnesses had clearly stated that the tainted money was found on the person of the appellant.
6. The learned Advocate for the appellant has additionally argued that on the points of conversation that took place between the appellant and the complainant, there is no corroboration of the word of the complainant. It is no doubt true that there is no corroboration of the word of the complainant because neither the Magistrate nor any other member of the trap party heard this conversation. However, what the law requires in the cases of this nature is corroboration of the word of the complainant. In the instant case that corroboration is found from circumstances of recovery of the tainted money, the further circumstance that the appellant was concerned with the mutation proceedings for which the complainant had made applications, and also by the report which the complainant had lodged on the previous day wherein he had stated that the appellant would accept In money from him on the following day at his house at Nawabshah or in the Taluka office at Sakrand. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Circle Officer or the Magistrate or rnashir Abdul Sattar were not giving true evidence. In fact there is no allegation of any enmity or hostility against any of these three witnesses. With regard to mashir Abdul Sattar it has been submitted by the learned Advocate that this witness used to sell cloth on the footpath and was for such reason under the influence of the police. In addition the learned Advocate has pointed out an omission, in the statement of this witness Abdul Sattar under section 164, Cr. P. C. That omission was only to the extent that the complainant did not inform the raiding party that the appellant had kept the money in the folds of the Ioin cloih. I would say that the mere fact of mashir Abdul Sattar selling cloth on the footpath would not in any manner reduce the value of the testimony or show that he was under the influence of the police. Coming to the other omission I am of the view that it is of a very insubstantial character and in any case even in the statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Abdul Sattar had stated that on a search for the currency notes the Anti-Corruption staff found six hundred rupees from the fold of loin cloth that the appellant was wearing. To my mind there was no contradiction and the omission, if at all, it could be considered to be an omission, was of a very insubstantial character which does not reduce the value of the evidence of Abdul Sat tar.
' The appellant has further stated that the amount was recovered from behind the door of the house from where he was arrested and that place was accessible to anyone. On that point as I have stated above the prosecution evidence is conclusive, and I can possibly see no reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of four witnesses who have given evidence on the point and such evidence has not at all been shaken in cross-examination. Lastly it has been urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant had nothing to do with mutation proceedings, and secondly that the appellant had already been influenced by the Mukhtiarkar that the land in question could not be mutated in his name. I am of the view that such criticism of the prosecution is absolutely fallacious. The appellant examined there defence witnesses, and Wali Muhammad who is a defence witness of the appellant has produced the record of the Taluka office. He has produced a document which is Exh. 9/B on the record and is a report given by the appellant to the Mukhtiarkar of Sakrand Taluka. In this document which is in the nature of an intra- office reference the appellant has stated that he had examined the Revenue Record in connection with the mutation of the same in favour of complainant Nawab Bhatti. He has further stated that some documents had been sent to the High Court in a pending appeal. In the same document the appellant has also written that survey Nos. 402, 403, 404 stand in the name of the Central Government and that the land revenue assessment of the same was being paid by complainant Nawab Bhatti and the same are in his possession. Similarly in regard to Survey Nos. 389, 391 and 624 it is stated in the same document which has been prepared by the appellant, and purports to be a report to the Mukhtiarkar, that the assessment in respect of these survey numbers is being paid by complainant Nawab Bhatti. In the face of all this correspondence it is absolutely inconceivable that the appellant was in no way concerned with the land in question or the mutation thereof. In fact such evidence has come through the defence witness who has been examined by the appellant himself. The appellant had stated in his section 342, Cr. P. C. Statement that he had taken charge of Tapo Jamalkirio on 19th December, 1970 viz., after the incident. To my mind this appears to be typographical error. As it is the appellant had been arrested in this case on the 1st of September, 1970. Normally he should have been suspended from service but in case he continued to remain in service even thereafter, some evidence would have been available to the appellant and he could at least have produced his appointment order showing that he took over charge of this Tapa on the 19th of December, 197J. No such evidence has been produced. In any case the documents that have been produced at the instance of the appellant himself conclusively show that the appellant was concerned with this Tapa and has something to do in his capacity as a Tapedar, in the matter of mutation of the record. There is as such sufficient material on the record to show clearly that the appellant was concerned with the mutation proceedings which had been initiated at the instance of the complainant.
7. Corning to the evidence of the three defence witnesses they have nothing to state in regard to the trap proceedings. They have been produced for the purpose of production of the record in relation to the disputed land. In fact it is the case of the prosecution that a dispute in regard to land did exist and if there was no dispute I would say there would be no occasion for the complainant paying a bribe to the appellant. In that view of the matter I find that the evidence of the defence witnesses is of no avail to the appellant.
8. On a consideration of all the aspects of the case I am satisfied that the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence that has been imposed on him and dismiss this appeal. The appellant who is on bail shall surrender to serve out the balance of his sentence.