RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.--- Zulfiqar Ahmad, Muhammad Yousuf, both sons of Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Hanif alias Tidy and Muhammad Hussain appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned Judge, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorists Activities), Lahore under sections 440, 435/149; P.P.C. The sentence given to them under section 440/149, P.P.C. Was three years' R.I.
Plus a fine of Rs.10,000 each or in default thereof to undergo one year's R.I. Each: They were further awarded the sentence of three years' R.I. Under section 435/149, P.P.C. Each and a fine of Rs.10,000 each or in default thereof to suffer one year's R.I. Each on 19-10-1991: All the appellants have assailed their conviction and sentence by filing this joint appeal before this Court. This appeal shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, was that on the night between 18th and 19th January, 1987 Ahmad Din P.W.3 was sleeping in Bus No.4184/LEG at bus-stand Depalpur. The witness was employed as a helper/driver by its owner to run the said bus. At about 2-30 a.m. Muhammad Hussain entered the bus and dragged the witness out of the bus. Muhammad Haneef, Muhammad Yousuf and Zulfiqar were standing just near the bus. Muhammad Yousuf and Haneef were holding tins of kerosene oil.
The accused sprinkled the oil over the bus on exhortation of Zulfiqar while he himself set the bus on fire. Thereafter Zulfiqar and Salahud Din (proclaimed offender) fired shots in the air from their guns -to overawe the witness. Ahmad Din P.W. Was given a severe beating by the accused when he asked them not to set the bus on fire. The motive was that the accused used to charge `Jagga tax' from the bus owners by a mere show of force. As a protest some of the owners withdraw their buses from the groups of Rana Zulfiqar and joined the group of Shafat Ahmad, another transporter of the area for plying their buses. This caused an immense annoyance to Zulfiqar accused and motivated him to set the bus on fire.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case produced Barkat Ali, P.W.1, Shafat Ahmed P.W.2, Ahmad Din P.W.3, Muhammad Amin P.W.4, Haji Muhammad P.W.5 and Muhammad Ashiq S.I. P.W.6. P.W.1 recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./I. P.W.2 is a witness of motive. He is also the first informant., P.W.3 was the conductor of the bus. He is a star witness, of the prosecution case. P.W.4 being a watchman was present at the spot and witnessed the whole occurrence. Haji Muhammad P.W.5, was the owner of the bus in question. Muhammad Ashiq, S.I. P.W.6 investigated the case. He took into possession the burnt bus vide memo. Exh.P.G. Maqsood Ahmad A.S.I. C.W.1 proved the non- availability of co-accused Salah-ud-Din. He was deputed to arrest Salahud Din on the basis of non-bailable warrants issued against him. However, he failed to execute the said warrants by arresting the accused. The accused denied the allegations levelled against them in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Zulfiqar appellant deposed that he was transporter by' profession. He took the plea that Sardar Shafat Ahmad, in fact used to collect `Jagga tax' from him through-one Tayyab, a Goonda employed by him for the purpose. He further stated that a criminal case was registered against Tayyab at his instance for extorting money from him. He stated that he was falsely involved in the case inasmuch as he did not set the bus on fire. About Hanif and Yousuf, he deposed that they were his drivers to ply the buses. Similarly he took the plea that 'Muhammad Hussain was employed by him as a helper/driver to ply his bus. He claimed that he did not know co-accused Salahud Din. The other accused adopted the statement of Zulfiqar appellant. However, no evidence in defence was led by them.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that there was no evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. According to him, the prosecution witnesses are highly interested and as such should not be accepted as truthful witnesses to register a conviction against the accused. He also argued that no respectable witness from the locality was produced in support of the prosecution case.
5. Learned State counsel supported the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
6.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The whole record was also perused by us with the assitance of the learned counsel, for the parties. There is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. The prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ahmad Din P.W.3 was conductor of the bus. His presence at the spot cannot be doubted in the given circumstances. He was to ply the bus alongwith the driver early in the morning. He was sleeping inside the bus in question. He was dragged out of the bus by the accused and was also given a beating by the accused. Similarly presence of Muhammad Amin P.WA cannot be doubted at the spot because he was employed at the bus stand as a watchman by the owners of the buses. He is entirely a disinterested and impartial witness in the case. He was, naturally, able to witness the whole occurrence because of the nature of his duties. Both the witnesses stated without any ambiguity that the accused set the bus on fire by sprinkling oil on it in their presence. Their evidence is trustworthy and is very much convincing. It inspires confidence. In the circumstances, there appears absolutely no reason to disbelieve them. The recovery of burnt bus was also proved by these witnesses beyond any shadow of doubt. The motive as set up by the prosecution was also proved by the prosecution to the hilt. We are prepared to believe the prosecution version beyond doubt. Defence version was that it was the complainant who set the bus on fire with a view to falsely implicate the appellant.
No evidence whatsoever was led by the accused in support of their plea. The plea is thus wholly without any basis and as such is discarded straightaway. It simply cannot be believed that the owner will burn his own very costly bus to falsely implicate the appellants in this case.
7. Result of the above discussion is that there is no substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.