She-buffalo of Nizam Din P.W.1 was stolen away from his house. He lodged F.I.R. After one month and 6 days of the occurrence. After about one month of the F.I.R. Muhammad Tufail, A.S.I., and Siraj Din and others saw three persons, Muhammad Akbar, absconder, and the two petitioners namely Muhammad Maqbool and Muhammad Ashraf taking the buffalo with them. So, he apprehended them. At that time Muhammad Akbar was physically taking the buffalo whereas the petitioners were following him at a close distance. The petitioners denied the charge. The prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Nizam Din P.W.1 supported the theft of his she-buffalo and also identified the recovered buffalo as his property. Siraj Din P.W.2 and Muhammad Tufail A.S.I., P.W.4 supported the recovery of buffalo from the petitioners and Muhammad Akbar absconder. The rest of the evidence was of formal nature. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners denied the recovery of she-buffalo from them. They led evidence in defence. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. Each. On appeal, the sentence was reduced from one year to six months' R.I. Each, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution case accepted at its face value no case of exclusive possession of buffalo by the petitioners was/is made out, and as such, they could not have been convicted under section 411, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that according to the prosecution case, Muhammad Akbar absconder/accused was physically taking the she-buffalo with him and the petitioners were following at a close distance. There is nothing on record to show as to from where the petitioners had joined Muhammad Akbar absconder accused. The possibility of their having,, joined Muhammad Akbar innocently as way-farers cannot be excluded. Since the she-- buffalo was in the physical possession of Muhammad Akbar, therefore, it cannot be said that they were keeping/possessing she-buffalo knowing the same to be stolen one. They cannot be punished on surmises and conjectures.
For what has been said above. I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. So, this revision is accepted and giving them the benefit of doubt, they are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail and stand discharged of the bail bonds.