I propose to dispose of the two Criminal Revisions Nos.176 of 1983 filed by Muhammad Yamin and 269 of 1983 filed by Haq Nawaz, through this single judgment.
2. The petitioners were tried under section 379/411, P.P.C. On the charge of committing theft and keeping two stolen batteries of the tractor of Muhammad Saeed, complainant. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Muhammad Saeed P.W.1, deposed about the theft and recovery of the stolen batteries from the petitioners immediately after the theft.
According to the prosecution case, the petitioners were seen removing the stolen batteries and were apprehended by the P.Ws. At some distance from the place of theft. Muhammad Rafiq P.W.2.
Muhammad Yunus P.W.3 and Shah Pasand P.W.4 supported the allegations against the petitioners.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioners denied all incriminating circumstances. They raised plea of false implication on account of enmity. The trial Court convicted them under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced them to two years' R.I. Each on 19-12-1981.
The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar on 29- 3-1983.
5. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Since revision after having been admitted to hearing cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the Investigating Officer, in the circumstances of the case was material witness with regard to the arrest of the petitioner on the spot and his subsequent production before him but he has not been produced. This being the position, the conviction of the petitioners based on the statements of the four prosecution witnesses cannot sustain. It is very easy to concoct such like cases and very difficult to rebut the same. The statement of Investigating Officer was very much essential for the just decision of the case. For these reasons, I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, the two revisions are accepted and the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. They stand discharged of the bail bond.