Abdul Ghafoor appellant was convicted under section 20 .Of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, by Magistrate Section 30, Narowal, District Sialkot and sentenced to 5 years' R.I. He has appealed.
2. The occurrence took place on 11-4-1980 at about evening time. Jangsee (P.W.1) is the complainant. His version given to the police was that from tongs-stand Narowal, he picked up a passenger and dropped him in village Maloke at Degarwela on the day of occurrence. He started back for his own village, and when he reached at the bridge of village Maloke at about evening time, two persons stopped his tonga, the appellant got hold of the horse and Muhammad Aslam, the absconder accused pulled him down. The appellant gave blows in his chest with his carbine and the absconder accused took out the amount of Rs.164 from his pocket. He was then tied with his turban with his tonga. The appellant and his co-accused untied the horse from the tonga and rode it away.
3. The version goes on that the complainant extricated himself and reached the Dera nearby and raised alarm. Announcement was made on loud--speaker which attracted many people of the village and they started chasing the culprits. Din Muhammad, Samey Khan, Noor Muhammad (P.Ws.2, 3 and 4) were also among them. When the culprits reached in the area of village Sadigabad, the appellant and his co-accused were spotted on the horse-back. The appellant fired in the air. Din Muhammad P.W. Gave a blow of hatchet on the left hand of Aslam absconder and both fell down from the horse. They were injured with Dandas and caught hold of. They (the appellant and his co---accused) were produced before the police at the spot.
4. The appellant and his co-accused were challaned to the Court. It appears that the co-accused absconded during the trial and his case has been separated under section 512, Cr.P.C. The appellant in his statement at the close of the trial pleaded that he had been involved due to and declined to produce defence. The defence suggested to the P.Ws. In cross-examination was that he and his co-accused had come to the complainant to demand back their money for the buffalo which the complainant had purchased from them and that they were falsely involved in the case.
5. Jangsee, Din Muhammad, Samey Khan and Noor Muhammad (P.Ws.1 to 4) have all supported the version given in the F.I.R. The complainant has detailed the whole occurrence while the other three have corroborated him as to the announcement on the loud-speaker, the chase given to the culprits, their being caught hold of at 2 different places (one for each) and having been produced before the police. Muhammad Khan A.S.I. (P.W.5) also stated that on the day of occurrence the witnesses had produced the appellant and his co-accused, the horse, the amount of Rs.164, a carbine with 7 cartridges before him and he had investigated and challaned the accused to Court.
Dr. Ijaz Ahmad (P.W.6) had medically examined the complainant and observed simple blunt weapon injuries on his chest. He had also examined Muhammad Aslam absconder as well as the appellant who were having injuries on their persons.
6. It is clear, as correctly appreciated by the learned Magistrate that the complainant and the witnesses belong to a place where the appellant and his co-accused had no concern, the appellant hailed from District Sheikhupura and his co-accused from District Gujranwala. There is nothing in the statements of the witnesses that previous to the occurrence, the parties were known to each other or the P.Ws. Had any illwill or grudge against the appellant or his co---accused. The witnesses are completely independent, disinterested and have given a detailed account of the occurrence which seems to be natural and convincing.
7. The upshot is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Section 20 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, only defines the offence while the sentence is provided in the P.P.C. Thus, maintaining the conviction under section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 the appellant's sentence of five years' R.I. Is also maintained under section 392, P.P.C. Which the learned Magistrate failed to mention (perhaps inadvertently). He is on bail, be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. He would, however, have the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
S.A./A-74/L