The petitioners and their co-accused Muhammad Sadiq were tried by a learned Magistrate Section 30 at Lahore. The allegations against them were that at about midnight during the night between l0th and 11th of January, 1980, they confined Muhammad Naeem P.W. In the premises of Corporation Market, Lodge Road, Lahore, after taking him forcibly there and removing his purse containing Rs.700 and his wrist watch, besides giving him beating and removing his clothes. He was charged under sections 392, 394 and 365, P.P.C. On the conclusion of trial the petitioners, vide order, dated 11-1-1982, were convicted under section 342, P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I.
Each. They were also convicted under section 386, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. Each. He, however, acquitted Muhammad Sadiq co-accused on benefit of doubt.
2. On appeal a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore, vide his order, dated 2-8-1983, maintained the conviction of the petitioners on both the counts but reduced their sentence under section 386, P.P.C. From three years' R.I. To one year's R.I. And added a fine of Rs.500 each or in default to further undergo two months' R.I. Each. Out of the fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs.1,500 was directed to be paid. As compensation to Muhammad Naeem complainant (apparently it seems to be a wrong direction as the total amount of fine was Rs.1,000 and its recovery could not swell to Rs.1,500).
3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.1.) Alim Din (P.W.3) were the eye-witnesses in this case, but during the trial they did not support the prosecution case and nothing favourable could be brought on the record during their cross-examination by the learned Prosecutor: According to the learned counsel, excepting the statement of Muhammad Naeem P.W.
Himself, there was no other evidence about the incident and his solitary statement was not enough for the conviction of the petitioners.
4. Excepting the solitary statement of Muhammad Naeem himself, there is no other evidence in support of the charge because the: two eye-witnesses, namely Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.1) and Alim Din (P.W.2) did not support him. It was unsafe to base their conviction on the lone testimony of Muhammad Naeem P.W. The recovery of the stolen wrist watch of Muhammad Naeem P.W. At the instance of Muhammad Sadiq acquitted co-accused did not serve as a corroboration. Therefore, the revision is accepted, the conviction and sentence of the petitioners are set aside, and they are acquitted on benefit of doubt. They are already on bail.