MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---These two Jail Appeal No.79-J of 1988 by Rab Nawaz and Criminal Appeal No.30-J of 1988 by Muhammad Rafiq arises from the judgment of Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial NO. VIII, Sargodha, whereby he on 3-2-1988, convicted them under section 392 read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to ten years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.10,000 in default thereof two years' R.I. Each. We propose to dispose of these appeals through this single judgment.
2. The charge against the appellants/accused was that they robbed Muhammad Siddiq, P.W.1 of Rs.70 and of motor cycle on 14-2-1986 near Burji No.74 on canal bank in Chak No.10/ML at a distance of five miles from Police Station Pipplan of District Mianwali. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced seven witnesses. Muhammad Siddiq P.W.1 stated that on the fateful day, he was proceeding to Chashma Colony on his motor, cycle. When he reached near Burji No.74, on the canal bank, he found that the road was blocked, so he stopped his motor, cycle. A person with muffled face carrying knife came there and asked him to hand over whatever was with him. At this juncture, another person with a muffled face, armed with carbine arrived there. He offered Rs.70 to them. But they (culprits) said that he had more money with him, which he should give to them. This led to dialogues and altercation between him and the culprits.
In the course of altercation, the clothes fell down from the faces of the culprits enabling him to see their features/faces. But they again muffled their faces. Since nothing more could be recovered from him, so they (culprits) forcibly took away his motor, cycle.
4. Ch. Shanlim Jahangir (P.W.2), Magistrate Ist Class conducted the identification parade on 29-4- 1986. During the identification parade, Muhammad Siddiq P.W.1 correctly identified the appellants/accused. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan S.I. (P.W.3) recorded F.I.R. Exh.PA. On the report of Muhammad Siddio P.W.1 on 14-2-1986 at 6-30 p.m. Motor cycle Exh.P.1 was recovered from the house of one Munir on 9-5-1986 in the presence of Shabbir Hussain P.W.4. Ilam Din P.W.5 is a Wajtakkar witness. He stated that on 14-2-1986, he had seen the appellants with motor cycle of the complainant in Chak No.II/ML. Khuda Bakhsh S.I. (P.W.-6) stated that on 9-5-1986 Muhammad Rafiq led to the recovery of knife P.2 from his house and, on the same day, Rab Nawaz accused /appellant got recovered .12 bore pistol P.3, one live cartridge P.4 and Rs.70 from his house.
Muhammad Masood Inspector (P.W.7) investigated the case. He supported the recovery of knife at the instance of Muhammad Rafiq appellant and the 'recovery of carbine P.3, live cartridge P.4, currency note P.5 and two ten rupees currency notes on the pointation of Rab Nawaz accused/appellant.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not produce evidence in defence.
6. Believing the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above.
7. These appeals have been filed through Jail. We have gone through the evidence with the assistance of Miss Yasmeen Sehgal, Advocate, learned counsel for the State. We find that Muhammad Siddiq P.W./complainant had no enmity against the appellants. He being the Manager of Muslim Commercial Bank was/is a responsible person. He has successfully faced the test of cross---examination. He rightly identified the appellants in the identification parade. No objection whatsoever,, was raised by the appellants at the time of identification parade before the Magistrate. We are very much impressed by the straightforward manner in which the investigation has been conducted in this case. The police could easily plant the recovery of stolen motor, cycle on one of the appellants, but this has not been done. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of Muhammad Siddiq complainant and Ch. Shamim Jahangir Magistrate/P.W. The prosecution evidence does not suffer from material contradictions, major discrepancies or dishonest improvements. Under Article 17 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat, the Court could/can convict an accused person on the testimony of one dependable witness, in this case. The law attaches more importance to the quality than to the quantity of evidence. Proof of a fact would depend upon the character of the witnesses and their competency to speak to that fact. On our assessment of the evidence of Muhammad Siddiq P.W., we find him to be an absolutely dependable witness and the conviction can safely be sustained' on his evidence Without further corroboration of the same.
However, in the instant case, the claim of Muhammad Siddiq P.W. That he could identify the culprits stands confirmed and corroborated by the test of identification parade. The appellants have not been able to rebut the prosecution case and evidence produced by it. The learned trial Court has applied its conscious mind to the evidence on record and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of its decision. The sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, in the circumstances of the case, is not excessive.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants, the appeals are I dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.