SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.--- Javed Iqbal (P.W.2) used to ply his Car No.5231/LHA as a taxi. On 16-7-1988, an unknown person came to him at Taxi Stand, Daska, and booked his Taxi for Klaswala, Tehsil Pasroor, for Rs.250. When he (Javed Iqbal) reached at Lorry Adda alongwith the said person, he called out two other persons standing there and they also sat in the car. Javed Iqbal after obtaining a sum of Rs.100 from them got the car fuelled with petrol and started for Klaswala via Kotli Bawa Faqir Chand. When they crossed Kotli Bawa Faqir Chand, they found the passage to Klaswa la unfit for drive due to rains whereupon the persons sitting in the car asked him to take them to Pasroor. From Pasroor, they told him to take them to Bangla Mianwali. When they reached opposite Kot Mokhal in the area of Police Station Satrah, the person who was sitting on the front seat asked him to stop the car. On his stopping the car, the said person came out of the car and after bringing out revolver from the fold of his Shalwar, placed the barrel on the temple of Javed Iqbal. In the meantime, one of the persons sitting on the back seat brought out a gun while the other brought out a Khanjer. They also pointed their weapons towards Javed Iqbal and told him to leave the car threatening that if he resisted or made a noise or informed the police he will face dire consequences. In spite of his entreaties, they forced him out of the car and went away, driving the car. While going, they also took away the wrist watch of Javed Iqbal. Shortly thereafter, a bus came from Pasroor side. Javed 1qbaI boarded the bus. He met Haji Muhammad Bashir S.I./S.H.O. At Satrah More at 4-00 p.m. And made statement Exh.P.A. To him on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was registered at the police station on the same day at 4-05 p.m. By Nasarullah Khan M.H.C. (P.W.1).
2. Haji Muhammad Bashir after despatching statement Exh.P.A. To the police station for registration of the case, started chasing the culprits alongwith the complainant. They came across them near Canal Bridge of Bungalow Mianwali. The S.H.O. Caught them with the help of the P.Ws. Gun P.1 loaded with cartridge P.2 found in the custody of Khalid alongwith three other cartridges was taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.C. Revolver .32 bore loaded with six cartridges and some other live cartridges found in possession of Muhammad Ayub were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.E. While dagger P.11 found in possession of Zulfiqar was taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.F. Wrist watch P.S belonging to complainant found in his possession was also taken into possession vide the same memo. Car No.5231/LHA belonging to the complainant alongwith the Registration Book P.5, Insurance Book P.6. And Driving Licence of the complainant found in the car were also taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. After completion of necessary investigation, challan was submitted to Court. Separate challan was submitted against them' for keeping in possession-unlicensed weapons.
3. The accused were tried by Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial No.IX, Gujranwala.
Learned trial Judge vide judgment, dated 28-3-1989 convicted all three of them under section 397/392, P.P.C. And sentenced each of theme to suffer R.I. For ten years plus to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 each in default whereof to undergo R.I. For one year each. Whole of the fine, on recovery, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Case property i.e. Taxi Car No.5231/LHA and the wrist watch were handed over to the complainant on Superdari being his property.
4. The convicts have filed appeal,
5. At the trial, prosecution in all had examined 5 witnesses.
Javed Iqbal complainant had appeared as P.W.2. He narrated the details given by him in the F.I.R.
And also claimed that he had accompanied Haji Muhammad Bashir S.I./S.H.O. After reporting the matter in chasing the culprits and was with him when he had succeeded in overtaking them and arrested them. He also claimed to have witnessed the recovery of weapons, his car and his wrist watch from the accused (details of which have been noted above). He denied the suggestion that the car was stuck up in front of the police station on the- main road and as a dispute, had occurred between him and the accused over 'the payment of fare, he had lodged a false report against them with the S.H.O. He denied the suggestion that no occurrence of robbery had taken place.
6. Pervaiz Iqbal, brother of Javed 1qbal, appeared as P.W.3 and verified the fact that Car No.5231/LHA Model 1977 and the wrist watch belonged to his brother, Javed Iqbal, and were his property.
7. Rashid Baig A.S.I. Who was accompanying the S.H.O. Alongwith other police officials on patrol duty when the complainant had reported the occurrence to him and had accompanied the S.H.O.
In chasing the accused till their arrest and taken into possession the articles recovered from each of them as well as the car of the complainant appeared as P.W.4 and deposed those facts. The suggestion that the whole story was cooked up and fabricated one was denied by him.
8. Haji Muhammad Bashir S.H.O. Who had chased and arrested the accused after recording the complaint Exh.PA. And had taken into possession the articles recovered from each of the accused alongwith the car at the time of their arrest appeared as P.W.5 and deposed those facts. He also denied the suggestion that the whole case was false and that no such occurrence' had actually taken place.
9. Muhammad Ayub appellant while denying the prosecution case and the recovery, of unlicensed revolver from him as well as the Taxi Car of the complainant stated as follows in answer to the question, why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you?:--- "I had a quarrel with Javed Iqbal the owner of Taxi Car upon the taxi fare in front of Police Station Satrah. While we were in front of Police Station Satrah two constables apprehended us and took us to the police station and produced us before the S.H.O. The S.H.O. Police Station Satrah lives in the neighbourhood of Javed Iqbal complainant, therefore, he fabricated this false case against me and my co-accused."
The other two appellants like him pleaded innocence and denied the recovery of unlicensed weapons from them as well as the car and the wrist watch belonging to the complainant. Both of them adopted the statement made by Muhammad Ayub in answer to the question, `why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you'.
10. All of them made statements on oath also wherein they claimed to be innocent. However, they did not adduce any evidence in defence.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset did not challenge the conviction of the appellants under section 397/392, P.P.C. However they prayed for reduction in the sentences of imprisonments as well as the sentences of fine. Prayer was also made by them for granting the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. To each of them.
12. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the convictions of the appellants, we have gone through the record and we are convinced even otherwise that no interference is called for in the judgment in so far as it pertains to the convictions of the appellants under section 397/392, P.P.C. The P.Ws. Who made statements against them had neither any bias against them nor were inimical. In fact, they were not even known to them prior to the occurrence. They were arrested soon after the commission of the offences and the robbed property was also recovered from them. In the circumstances, no interference is c-fled for in the judgment of conviction. The same is maintained. However, their sentences of imprisonments are reduced to R.I. For seven years each. The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 to each is also reduced to Rs.5,000 each in default whereof each will undergo further R.I. For six months. They shall be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
The fine, on recovery, shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. The robbed property i.e. Car No.5231/LHA and the wrist watch which are already with the complainant shall remain with him as his property.
N.H.Q./M-273/L