Sadiq Masih alias Rangeela was tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, for an offence under section 165-A, P.P.C. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 29-5-1988 convicted and sentenced him to one year's R.I. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. According to the allegation, contained in the F.I.R. Exh. P.D. Got registered by Faqir Muhammad, S.I., on 14-11-1985 he was investigating the case of one Amanat Masih who disclosed that he had purchased Charas from Sadiq Masih. He led to the Khokha of said Sadiq, Masih where he was present. On the pointation of Sadiq Masih, Charas weighing 200 grams was recovered from his possession. In the meanwhile Sadiq Masih offered Rs.500 in the shape five notes, each denomination of Rs.100 to the S.I., for which the present case was registered. The appellant was challaned after due investigation.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced five witnesses in all. P.W.1 Ghulam Rasul, D.S.P., had partly investigated the case. Ayyub Rana, P.W.2 stated that he was involved in a case under section 307, P.P.C. In that connection he was present in the police station when one Amanat Masih was brought in the police station with the allegation that he was found in possession of Charas. He disclosed that he had purchased the Charas from Sadiq Masih. The police party alongwith said Amanat Masih went to the Khokha of Sadiq Masih, where 250 grams of Charas were found in his pocket. On arrest he offered Rs.500 as bribe to the S.I. Faqir Muhammad, Inspector, P.W.3 supported the version given him in the F.I.R. Liaqat Masih, P.W.4 stated that on 14-11-1985 he was going to his house when the police party asked him to accompany them in their jeep. They arrested Amant Masih who led the police party to the Khokha of Sadiq Masih, from whom Charas was recovered, Said Sadiq Masih offered Rs.500 as bribe to the Inspector. Riaz Ahmad, P.W.5, was S.H.O. Police Station Ichhra. He recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 on the complaint Exh. P.B. He investigated the case and challaned the accused. The appellant at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Submitted that both the witnesses from public were stock witnesses, therefore, could not be relied upon. Argued that the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is highly interested, inimical and unnatural. The contentions have been- resisted by learned Assistant Advocate-General.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. As far as Ayyub Rana, P.W: is concerned he himself was involved in a case under section 307, P.P.C. According to him, he had gone to the police station voluntarily to surrender himself, yet the police, instead of arresting him, associated him with the investigation of the case against the appellant. He also admitted that he is a prosecution witness in the case of Amanat Masih. He was also a prosecution witness against the appellant in the prohibition case. He further stated that he was arrested on the following day and thereafter was released. After going through his statement, it is clear that no reliance on the same can be placed because he is positively under the influence of the police and a stock witness. Faqir Muhammad, Inspector, P.W.3 stated that he arrested the appellant on the charge of being in possession of Charas weighing 200 grams. The appellant offered Rs.500 to the witness as illegal gratification, which he refused to accept and challaned him.
I have considered his statement. As far as P.W.1 Ayyub Rana is concerned, he stated that 250 grams Charas was recovered from the appellant, whereas P.W.3 stated that 200 grams Charas was recovered. It is a glaring discrepancy. Even otherwise, this witness, i.e., P.W.3, is most unnatural. He was going on a raid to recover narcotic, yet he chose to take a person who was required and had to be arrested for an offence under section 307, P.P.C., as a member of the raiding party. This itself casts grave doubt on the impartiality of the witness. Liaqat Masih, P.W.4 stated that on 14-11-1985, he was going to his house when the police made him sit in their jeep. They arrested Amanat Masih who disclosed that he had purchased Charas from the appellant therefore the police party went to his Khokha and secured Charas from the appellant. The appellant offered Rs.500 as bribe to the S.I.
In cross-examination, he stated that he was a rickshaw driver, yet he did not have a driving licence.
He also admitted that he had been challaned many times. A perusal of the statement of this witness also reveals that his statement does not inspire confidence. He is a rickshawh driver and the police made him sit in their jeep to become witness in the recovery of Charas from one Amanat. There is no explanation where did he leave his rickshaw. Even otherwise, could police not find some other person more reliable and confidence inspiring than the witness who, according to his own statement, had been challaned number of times. His statement does not inspire confidence.
For what has been discussed above, I hold the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant, therefore, the appeal is accepted, his conviction and sentence is set aside.
The appellant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.