JUDGMENTA.M. TIWANA, J.- The appellants were tried by the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial No.Vll, Sargodha,on the charge of committing robbery, punishable under section 392/397 PPC, by snatching away motor-bick No.LEW- 2386 from Muhammad Amir complainant, by putting him under fear of death on7.4.1988 at 8.15 p.m. When they intercepted him near Janda Head on Puki Nehr in the area of Burji No.180 in the jurisdiction of Police Station Kalloor Kot, District, Bhakkar, while returning to his house from Changarwala. On the conclusion of the trial, vide judgment dated 11.7.1988, they were convicted under section 392/397 PPC and sentenced to ten years R.I. And a fine of Rs.20,000/- or in default of its payment to further undergo two years R.I.
2. The incident was reported to the Police by Muhammad Amir complainant himself and case: FIR No.63 was registered on the same day against two unknown persons as the complainant could not identify them. During the investigation the snatched away motor-cycle was recovered by the police with the help of Khadim Hussain PW, who was brought to the place of incident by the police.
After preparing the moulds of foot tracks and tracing the foof prints of the cullpriis first he took the police party to village Umarwali, where they crossed River Indus and across the river he again traced the foot prints which led them to the hut of Kails, wherefrom they recovered the stolen motor-cycle from one Ashik Hussain Kail. Subsequently on 22.4.1988 the police arrested Ghulam Sadiq andMulazim Hussain appellants and at their instance they recovered rifle (P.l) and pistol (P.6) respectively alongwith five live cartridges from each.
3. On the completion of the investigation they were sent up for trial to the Special Court which, on their pleadings not guilty to the charge, recorded the evidence of as many as eight witnesses.
4. To be a little more precise, Muhammad Amir complainant (PW.1) repeated the version of the incident as given in the FIR and summarised above. Fateh Sher (PW.2), Muhammad Nawaz (PW.3) being witnesses of 'Wajtakkar' deposed that during the night of occurrence at about 10 p.m. They had seen the appellants pushing the motor-cycle to some destination and in response to a query, they had told them that the same was out of order. Muhammad Iqbal (PWA) had identified the motor-cycle as that of Muhammad Amir complainant and deposed accordingly.Mahboob Ellahi PW had met Muhammad Amir complainant after the incident and after hearing its details he had transported him on his own motor-cycle to his village. He testified accordingly. SI Khuda Bakhsh (PW.6) first testified that he had recovered the stolen motor-cycle (P.7) from the hut of Ashiq Hussain Kaii and then in the same breath he deposed that in fact it was recovered by S.I.
Muhammad Ashraf. Khadim Hussain (PW.7) stated that on the request of the police he had visited the spot and prepared the moulds the foot tracks leading to Umarwali and further on the River Indus and reached the hut of a Kail after crossing the river where the police took into possession the stolen Motor-cycle. The last witness was SI Muhammad Ashraf. He gave details of the investigation.
5. The appellant, in their respective statements recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C, denied all the incriminating circumstances figuring against them and alleging their false implication, professed innocence. On the conclusion of the trial the appellants were cofavicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid and they came up in appeal to this court.
6. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that they were not previously known to Muhammad Amir complainant and in these circumstances it was necessary for the police to arrange their test identification parade but this course was not adopted; that the recovery of the stolen motor-cycle was effected from one Ashiq Hussain Kail, resident of Dera Ismail Khan District, but he was neither cited as an accused nor be was cited as a witness and one does not know as what connection the appellants had with him; that the witnesses of Wajtakkar had no occasion to see the appellants taking away the stolen motor-cycle and they were stock witnesses of the police; that there is nothing on the record to show as how Khadim Hussain leading the police party with the help of foot prints of the appellants covered such a long distance and crossed a big river like Indus and going across it traced the motor-cycle in the hut of Ashiq Hussain Kail. It is contended that the prosecution story is replet with contradiction, improbabilities and infirmities and the appellants were convicted and sentenced for no valid reason and without any cogent evidence against them.
7. It it mi admitted position that the appellants wore not or known to Mahammad Amir complainant. For that reason he did aot mention their names in the FIR. He detdrbed the culprits by meant of their feature and stature. We have not been assured as how Muhammad Nawaz and Fateh Sher, the witnesses of Wajtakkar knew the appellants previously when they belonged to another district situated across river Indus. The hoUowneas of their testimony stands badly exposed. No reliance, therefore, could be placed on their deposition either. Khadim Hussain FW, who claimed himself to be a tracked, also told a cock and bull story. It is simply iacredibie that he would come to the spot during the night of occurrence, pick up moulds of the foot prints of the accused and tikes with the help of the foot prints he would lead the police pasty to the hnt of one Ashiq Hussain Kail across river Indus after crossing ft. Bring the biggest river in Pakistan it is not easy to cross it at any place and likes even if it is not in spate. To cap k all, it has not been explained by the prosecution as what connection Ashiq Hussain Kail, from whose hut the stolen motor-cycle was recovered, had with the appellants and how they were roped in and he was let off.
8. 1n view of the above, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution could not adduce any reliable evidence to prove the guik of the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt Therefore, their appeal is accepted, their conviction and sentence are set aside and they are acquitted. Being on bail, they shall stand discharged of their liability under the bail bonds.