Zulfiqar and Nawab appellants were convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Okara for offence under sections 193 and 200, P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 14-4-1986, and sentenced under section 193 for two years each and a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default thereof four months' R.I. Each and under section 200, P.P.C. To two years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default thereof four months' R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They have preferred appeal against the same.
2. The appellants had applied for bail before arrest in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. On 14-4-1986 it was fixed for hearing. The appellants produced the affidavits of Sher, Zulfiqar, the eye-witnesses and Amin, the alleged abducted boy and also produced all the three of them before the Court. When the three P.Ws. Were questioned as to the affidavits, they asserted that the contents were false and wrong. On this notice under section 476, Cr.P.C. Was issued to the appellants and in summary jurisdiction conviction recorded with the sentence as indicated above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that no offence could be said to be proved against the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. After having taken through the record there seems to be much force in the argument.
4. Sher, Zulfiqar and Am in (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3) stated that they had been brought to the Court premises by the appellants and their thumb-impressions obtained on plain sheets of paper but the contents of the affidavits were not their statements. The thumb-impressions being admitted on the affidavits, the statements of Amjad Hussain (D.W.1) who ascribed affidavits and Mian Zafar Iqbal, Oath Commissioner (D.W.2) who had verified the same can be of much significance. It is also to be noted that the witnesses had been a companying the appellants to the Court and this supports the version of the appellants that they had compromised. If instead of writing down the details of the compromise in the affidavits, the story of prosecution was negatived therein, it could not be said that there was no compromise. The very fact that the witnesses accompanied the appellants to the Court and gave their thumb-impressions in presence of the scribe (D.W.1) and the Oath Commissioner (D.W.2) there `vas no reasonable possibility of doubt that the affidavits were not given by the witnesses or false evidence was created by the appellants.
5. The appeal, is therefore, accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail and stands discharged of the bail bonds.