SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.---The appeal is directed against the order, dated 23-12-1990 of Judge, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, vide which the appellant was convicted under section 126 of the Railways Act, 1890 and sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 years.
2. F.I.R. Exh.P.B. Was registered at Police Station Railway Police, Sialkot on 12-11-1989 at 7-15 p.m. By Muhammad Siddiq, Head Constable (P.W.1) on receipt of complaint Exh.P.A., recorded by Hassan Mukhtar, A.S.I., Police Post, Narowal on the same day at 2-55 p.m. At the spot.
According to F.I.R. Hassan Mukhtar, A.S.I. Received information at 2-30 p.m. That some person was untying a fish-plate from the railway line, near the outer signal of Narowal Police Station, towards Sialkot. He went there alongwith Constables Rafiq Beg, Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Afzal, accompanied by Muhammad Sharif son of Ghulam Muhammad. They saw Ilyas Masih (appellant)
(the name and address came to be known after he was taken into custody) unscrewing the nut- bolts, of the fish-plate with a spanner. The accused on seeing the police party started running.
However, they succeeded in catching him. On spot inspection, the A.S.I. Found, that 3 nuts of the fish-plate had been unscrewed. The nuts lying at the spot and the spanner recovered from the appellant were taken into possession vide memo Exh. P.E. .32 bore revolver found in possession of the appellant was also taken into possession vide a separate memo. Separate challans were submitted against the appellant for having committed offences under section 379, P.P.C., section 126 of Pakistan Railways Act and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. For offence under section 126 Railways Act, he was tried by the Judge, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala.
3. Statements of five witnesses were recorded at the trial. Afzal Mahmud, Constable who appeared as P.W.4 gave the ocular account. While stating that Ilyas Masih had been arrested when he had attempted to run away, he also stated that 3 nut-bolts P.1 to P.3 and spanner P.4 recovered from him (Ilyas Masih) were taken into possession vide memo Exh. P.E. However, during cross- examination he clarified that nut-bolts and the spanner were lying at the spot from where they were picked up and taken into possession. He denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement.
4. Hass an Mukhtar, A.S.I. Who had drafted complaint Exh. PA. On the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.
P.B. Was recorded, and investigated the case, appeared as P.W.5. He repeated the facts recorded by him in the F.I.R. During cross-examination he stated that Muhammad Sharif was present at the Police Post when he had received the information and so had accompanied him. He expressed inability to state as to how long it would take to unscrew the nut --bolts from a fish-plate. Although he denied that he had made statement Exh.D.B. Before the Resident Magistrate, yet he was contradicted by producing Exh.D.B. (copy of the statement). During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had arrested the appellant from village Deegana on the asking of Ch. Ihsan Nabi. The suggestion that he had planted the articles P.1 to P.4 on the accused, was also denied by him.
5. Muhammad Sharif the only witness from the public was given up as having been won-over.
6. Naseer Ahmad, Permanent Way Inspector was examined as P.W.2. He verified that articles P.1 to P.4 were the property of Pakistan Railways.
7. Muhammad Din who was posted as, Key-man at Railway Station, Narowal during the days of occurrence, appeared as P.W.3. He stated that on having received the information that 3 nut-bolts had been stolen from the railway line, he had got issued 3 other nut-bolts from the store Narowal and affixed those at the relevant places.
8. P.W.1 had recorded the formal F.1.R.
9: The appellant during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. In answer to the question, `why this case against you?', he stated that the Police falsely implicated him in order to show their efficiency. He declined to make statement on oath under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. And did not choose to lead any evidence in defence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant after having taken, us through the evidence, criticised the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that failure of the prosecution to examine Muhammad Sharif, the only witness from the public, showed that a false case had been cooked up against the appellant. While pointing out discrepancies in the statements of P.W.4 and P.W.5 about the manner in which the nut-bolts and the spanner, were recovered, he also contended that it would not be safe to maintain the conviction merely on the statements of two police officials.
11. Learned counsel for the. State defended the judgment of the trial Court.
12. The Police had joined a person from the public in the raid: He had attested the recovery memo as well. However, he was not examined at the trial as he had been won-over. As such no adverse inference can be drawn that the police had not made any attempt to join a person from the public to witness the crime/recovery.
13. The mere fact that the ocular account as well as the evidence of recovery had been deposed to by two persons serving in the Police, in our view, in the circumstances of the case, is hardly a ground to set at naught the conviction of the appellant. None of the Police Officials had any bias against the appellant. In fact the appellant had not adverted to the suggestion put to P.W.5 that he had been involved at the instance of Ch. Ihsan Nabi from his village, while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Such suggestion, therefore, appears to be just a stroke in the darkness. He had not even offered to make statement on oath to refute the allegations against him, which he could easily have done.
14. The discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of two witnesses, are of no importance. Anyway they do not go to the root of the case. If information of the commission of offence had not been received in time and the Police had not acted immediately and found the mischief done by the appellant, some disastrous railway accident might have taken place. The officials from the Railway, examined at the trial proved that the nut-bolts and the spanner were the property of the Railway. They also proved that the fish-plate was tied with the other nut-bolts, got issued from the store.
Keeping in view all the facts of the case, we are convinced that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.