JUDGMEIN RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.--- Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah son of Abid Shah was convicted by the learned Judge Special Court No.4, Suppression of Terrorist Activities Lahore Division on 25-7-1990 under section 307/392/397, P.P.C. And section 25 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Under section 307, P.P.C.
The appellant was sentenced to five years R.I. And a fine of, Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For one year. Under section 392/397, the appellant was sentenced to suffer 10 years R.I.
Plus a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default to suffer two years R.I. Similarly, under section 25 of the Telegraph Act, the appellant was sentenced to two years R.I. It was directed that sentences recorded against the appellant shall run concurrently. Appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No.803 of 1990 before this Court.
2. Shortly stated the facts are that Khalid Saeed son of Muhammad Yaqoob, complainant, is a resident of Sheikhupura and that he was employed as a Manager in United Bank Limited, Mor Joyanwala Branch, District Sheikhupura. At about 10 a.m. The complainant was present on his seat and was doing his duty and that other members of his staff were also doing their job in the Bank.
Muhammad Razzaq, a guard of the Bank was standing duly armed with .12 bore double barrel gun in front of the strong room of the Bank. Two robbers entered into their Bank. They were having Chadars spread over their bodies. One of them was of wheatish colour with a height of about 5' - 5". His age was about 19/20 years. He was putting on a Shalwar Qameez. He was armed with a klashnikov. The other robber was of stout body and had long moustaches with a round face. He had not shaved himself. His height was also about 5` - 5" and was about 30/31 years old. He was also putting on Shalwar and Qameez and was armed with a pistol. He too had a Chadar spread over his shoulder. The robber who was armed with a klashnikov immediately after his. Entry in the premises ordered the Bank staff to raise their hands. The gunman was dropped on the ground by the man holding the klashnikov. They grappled for some time. The rifle of the gunman was snatched by the robber by over--powering him. All the members of the staff were confined in the bath room of the Bank through a show of force. Thereafter, the robbers started looting the Bank.
From the table of the Cashier, a sum of Rs.2,44,320 was collected by them and kept in a bag. The man with klashnikov fired a shot to overawe the people inside the Bank which hit a safe lying in the strong room. They also issued threats that if anybody raised an alarm, he will be done to death there and then. They also threw away the telephone receiver and broke it into pieces. After committing the offence, they rode away on a motor-cycle BRA/1834 and disappeared from the scene. Nobody dared to chase them because of fear of being attacked by them.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Mian Zulfiqar Ahmed, M.I.C., Sheikhupura, P.W.1, Abdul Wakeel Khan, Resident Magistrate, Narang, Ferozewala, P.W.2, Khalid Saeed, P.W.3, Muhammad Yousaf Bhatti, P.W. 4, Muhammad Razzaq P.W.5, Muhammad Riaz, P.W. 6 Muhammad Yaqoob, A.S.I., P.W. 7, Muhammad Siddique, Constable, P.W.8 and Liaquat Ali, S.H.O., Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura, P.W.9. Allah Yar and Muhammad Hussain P.Ws. Were given up by the prosecution being un--necessary. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations levelled against him. He stated that he was identified correctly in the identification parade because he was shown to the witnesses at the police station in the first instance. He took the plea that he had been substituted for the real culprit who committed the offence. He deposed that Mehdi Hassan, a proclaimed offender was one of them. He also stated that Mehdi Hassan was a personal guard of Mehdi Hassan Bhatti, M.P.A., Hafizabad and that he had acquaintance with him because he used to go to the petrol pump with a view to purchase petrol from him. However, no evidence in defence was led by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel contends with vehemence that there was no evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime inasmuch as the appellant was shown to the witnesses in the police station and in consequence, he was picked up by the prosecution witnesses during the, identification 'parade. Learned counsel argues that the fact that no looted money was recovered from the possession of the appellant was enough to show that the appellant was innocent and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the offence might have been committed by the absconding accused with some other accused. Learned State counsel supported the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned Special Judge.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have read the whole record with their assistance with care. We hold the view that the appellant committed the robbery in the Bank of the complainant while armed with a deadly weapon. It is in the evidence that the appellant and his co-accused looted the Bank money when they were armed with lethal weapons.
Khalid Saeed, P.W.3, Muhammad Yousaf Bhatti, P.W.4, Muhammad Razzaq, P.W.5 and Muhammad Riaz, P.W.6 were definitely in a position to see and identify the accused when they committed the offence. Khalid Saeed, P.W.3 is a Manager in the said branch of United Bank. He deposed that on 14- 3-1990, at about 10 a.m., he and his colleagues, Sh. Shafique, Abdul Wahid Khan, Muhammad Anwar Bhatti, Cashier, Muhammad Yousaf, Cashier, Muhammad Hayat, Assistant and Ghulam Muhammad Raza were present inside the Bank and were doing their duties as usual. He stated that he saw a person who was armed with a klashnikov while entering into the Bank Hall and ordered all the members of his staff to raise their hands. Another person who was armed with a Mauser also entered with him. Muhammad Razaq, gunman resisted their entry in the Bank, but the -absconding accused was able to over--power the gunman and snatched his gun. The witness further stated that all the members of the staff were frightened and were confined in a bath room of the Bank.
Thereafter, a sum of Rs.2,44,320 was looted by the robbers and they ran away on a motor-cycle bearing No.BRA/1834 within their sight. This statement of Khalid Saeed, P.W. 3 was materially supported by Yousaf Bhatti, a Cashier of the Bank, P.W. 4 and Muhammad Razzaq, P.W. 5, the gunman. Muhammad Riaz, P.W.6, a clerk of the Bank also lends full support to statement of the complainant in this behalf. They are the most natural witnesses because they were manhandled by the robbers. It was a day time occurrence. They were able to retain the descriptions of the accused in their memories without any mistake at all. These witnesses, thus, inspire confidence.
They are independent people and had no animosty whatsoever against the appellant. The appellant was fully identified by the witnesses during the identification parade conducted by Mian ZuIfiqar Ahmed, M.I.C., Sheikhupura, P.W.1. There is, therefore, no I, A reason to disbelieve them.
Contention that no looted money was recovered from the appellant is not at all a ground to discard this overwhelming evidence and also to show that he was innocent. The fact that he led to the recovery of motor-cycle bearing No.BRA/1834 from his own house would demonstrate beyond doubt that he was very much connected with the commission of the crime. The prosecution had, thus, succeeded to prove its case against appellant S beyond doubt. The contentions of the learned counsel, therefore, being devoid of force are repelled. The prosecution evidence is natural, consistent; dis--interested and reliable. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced. There is thus no substance in the appeal which is dismissed.