SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.--- Muhammad Yasin, Fayyaz Ahmad, Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Saleem alias Pather were tried by Judge Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, under section 128 of the Railways Act.
The prosecution case at the trial was that Railway Train 139-Up going from Lahore to Narowal abruptly stopped after having moved out of the platform, Railway Station, Rayya, at 12-15 noon on 5-10-1989. Muhammad Ikram, Constable, who was on duty ran towards the backside and noticed that the hosepipe of the last bogi was hanging after disconnection. Muhammad Jameel Fireman, also came there. He re-affixed the hosepipe. The train thereafter started. It had hardly moved a few paces when it again stopped abruptly, Muhammad Ikram, Constable, who had taken the seat in the last compartment rushed immediately and saw Yasin accused holding hosepipe in his hand.
He caught him at the spot. Iftikhar, Saleem and Fayyaz accused got him forcible released. All the four accused ran away throwing the hoze pipe there. The hoze pipe was re-affixed whereafter the train moved away.
2. Statements of eight P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial.
Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W.2) and Muhammad Ikram, Constable (P.W.6) deposed the ocular account. Muhammad Jameel, Fireman (P.W.4) stated having re-affixed the hoze pipe, while Muhammad Bashir Janjua (P.W.7) and Ghulam Qadir, Driver (P.W.3) stated about the stoppage of the train abruptly twice at the Rayya Railway Station. Muhammad Bashir Janjua also claimed to have lodged the report at the police station. The police officer, who had investigated the case, was examined as P.W.8. The remaining witnesses are more or less of formal nature;.
3. All the accused during trial denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. Three witnesses were examined in defence.
Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 21-1-1991 convicted all the four accused under section 128 of the Railways Act and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. For three months. They were also given the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
4. Muhammad Yasin, Fayyaz Ahmad and Iftikhar Ahmad have filed Criminal Appeal No.67 of 1991 while Muhammad Saleem alias Pather has preferred Criminal Appeal No.51 of 1991. As similar questions of facts and law are involved in both the matters, they are being disposed of together.
5. There is voluminous and reliable evidence on record about the prosecution version that the train 139-Up had twice abruptly stopped after having moved out of platform of Railway Station Rayya on account of disconnection of hosepipe. It is not the case of the appellants either that no occurrence of stoppage of the train due to disconnection of the hosepipe had taken place. The prosecution case to that extent, therefore, needs no discussion.
6. The question, which needs consideration is, whether there was enough evidence against the appellants to maintain their conviction under section 128 of the Railways Act?
Only two witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.8 deposed the ocular account. Muhammad Ikram Constable, stated that when the train stopped for the second time, he had run Ad caught Yasin with hosepipe in his hand. He stated that the other accused had got him forcibly released. PW.2 stated that he had learnt that Yasin had disconnected the hosepipe. He corroborated the statement of Muhammad Ikram to the extent that Yasin was caught but he had been got released by the other accused.
7. There is nothing on the record to consider that Muhammad Ikram made false statement against Yasin. Muhammad Ikram did not know Yasin prior to the occurrence. He was not his enemy. In fact, he did not even know him before the occurrence and he had learnt his name when he had caught him. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution allegation that Yasin had disconnected the hosepipe and thus committed offence under section 128 of the Railways Act. No case for interference in his conviction is made out. The same is, therefore,, maintained.
8. So far as the other three appellants are concerned, none of the P.Ws stated that they had either seen them disconnecting the hosepipe or had found them holding the same. The only allegation against them, is, that they had got Yasin released forcibly. They could have been held guilty of any offence i.e. Under section 186, P.P.C. Etc. But they could not have been held liable for having committed offence under section 128 of the Railways Act. Their conviction under section 128 of the Railways Act, as such, is not maintainable. The same is set aside and they are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
9. Yasin appellant has already undergone 2 months and 11 days' R.I. He remained for some days in jail during trial as well. The sentence of three months awarded to him is therefore reduced to that of already undergone. He shall also be released, if not required in any other case.