A.M.TIWANA, J.~This criminal revision arises out of the judgment, dated 15.9.1992, by which an Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore dismissed the appeal of the petitioners against their conviction recorded and sentence awarded under section 382 PPC by the Magistrate 1st Class, Model Town, Lahore, vide his judgment, dated 25.4.1992.
2. The prosecution a case in brief was that on 29.9.1990 at about 10.40 a.m, three youngmen, one of whom was about 22 years old, the other about 27 years old and the third about 28 years old, trespassed into the house of Mst. Mahmooda Begum complainant when she was all alone in her house situated in Defence Area, Lahore. Two of them were armed with pistols and the third with a 'Churra'. They, on pistol point, removed her four bangles, a neckless and a pair of earrings, all made of gold. They also removed from the safe a golden watch, a set of Parker pens and a set of Sheffield pens besides a few other small precious articles, including medals of her sons. They also took away prize bonds of Rs.10,(KK)/- and one thousand rupees in cash. After the occurrence, she reported the matter at Police Station Defence Area, Lahore, through a written complaint (Exh.PA), on the basis of which case: FIR No. 159 was registered on the same day under section .382 PPC.
3. The investigation of the case was taken up by ASI Muhammad Zia-ul- Haq. He inspected the spot and prepared the rough sketch. On 27.2.1991 Wahdat Police apprehended four persons as suspects.
One of them disclosed his name as Karamat Masih alias Jagga and the other Ilyas Masih alias Sohny (now petitioners). During interrogation they disclosed that about five months earlier they alongwith Salim Masih alias Salimi (now appellant) had trespassed into a bungalow in Defence Area and on pistol point they had snatched away some ornaments and other articles from the lady. On 1.3.1991 they led the police party to Bungalow No.119-J in Defence Arrea and indicated that.
They committed the offence in that house. On 2.3.1991 they led to their respective houses in Leninabad, Lahore. Karamat Masih alias Jagga petitioner got recovered from his house a golden watch and a bangle made of gold, while Ilyas Masih alias Sohny appellant got recovered earrings and a bangle made of gold from his house. The police seized these articles. On 3.5.1991 these were shown to Mst.Mahmoodan Begum complainant, who identified the same as her own. Salim Masih alias Salimi petitioner could not be arrested and the police, ultin. Tely showing him as absconder, sent up Karamat Masih alias Jagga and Ilyas Masih alias Sohny petitioners to the court of Illaqa Magistrate for trial. It appears that Salim Masih alias Salimi petitioner was latter arrested and he also joined the trial.
4. On the commencement of the trial they were charged under section 382 PPC and, on their pleading not guilty, the prosecution led evidence against them. ASI Asghar Ali (PW.1) had recorded the formal FIR (Exh.PA/1) on the basis of written complaint (Exh.PA). He deposed accordingly. ASI Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (PW.2) gave the details of initial investigation of the case conducted by him. He added that before his transfer he had got the details of the articles of theft in this case circulated in the police gazette. ASI Ata Muhammad (PW.3) deposed as how on 27.2.1991 a Nakabandi party of the police, of which he too was a member, apprehended four suspects, out of whom two were Karamat Masih alias Jagga and Ilyas Masih alias Sohni, petitioners, who, as a result of interrogation, on 2.3.1991 led to the recovery of some stolen articles of Ms/.Mehmooda Begum complainant. According to him, the former got recovered a golden wrist watch and a golden bangle, and the latter earrings and a bangle made of gold, from their respective houses, which were seized by him, vide recovery memo. (Exh.PE) and (Exh.PE), respectively. These articles were identified by Mst. Mehmooda Begum complainant on 5.3.1991 as her own, he added. He proved the site plans (Exh.PJ) and (Exh.PK) of the places of recovery of these articles. Mst. Mehmooda Begum complainant appearing as (PWA) reiterated the contents of her complaint with more details. She claimed to have identified all the three appellants during the course of her deposition before the trial court. According to her, they were the same person who had a few months earlier on pistol point snatched away her ornaments besides other articles, including prize bonds of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs.1000/- in cash after trespassing into her house and roaming about leisurely and eating eatables from her freezer. In reply to a question of the cross-examination, she stated that the accused had got certain other articles manufactured from the stolen bangles and the same were not handed over to her.
The next witness was ASI Noor Ahmad Naik (PW.5). He deposed that during the days of occurrence he was posted at Police Station Wahdat Colony and this case was being investigated by ASI Ata Muhammad PW and in response to his interrogation Karamat Masih and Ilyas Masih petitioners first led to the house where they had committed the crime and then leading to their own house at Hena Abad got recovered the stolen watch, which were seized by ASI Ata Muhammad. He proved the recovery memo, signed by him as an attesting witnesses.
3. On the completion of the prosecution evidence, the petitioners, in their respective statements recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C, denied all the incriminating circumstances and alleging their false implication, professed innocence. They produced no defence.
4. On the conclusion of the trial, they were convicted by the trial court in the manner aforesaid and their appeal also failed. So they invoked the revisional jurisdiction''" of this court.
5. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that they were poor labourers and were falsely implicated in this case by the police and certain articles were planted on them merely to please the complainant, who happened to be the wife of a senior Army officer and the police wanted to justify that they were able to detect the crime and recover some stolen articles. It was urged that the petitioners were arrested quite a few months after the incident taking place in the house of the complainant and since they were not previously known to her, it was necessary for the police to have arranged their identification parade for their identification by the complainant but they did not resort to this process and the identification of the petitioners during trial by the complainant was not enough for basing their conviction under section 382 PPC. According to the learned counsel, as per statement of the complainant in the cross-examination, the petitioners had entered her house by following her two young maid-servants, which indicates that at the time of commission of the crime those two girls were present but they were not cited as prosecution witnesses, nor the people of locality, who had seen the 4th culprit standing out side the bungalow on a vigil, had been mentioned as prosecution witnesses and in these circumstances when the material evidence had been suppressed, her solitary statement was not enough to prove her allegations against the petitioners. Finally, it was urged that Myf. Mehmooda Begum complainant, in reply to a question of cross-examination, had admitted that her bangles had been substituted by the accused as they got manufactured some other articles from them and in these circumstances it was not possible for the prosecution to claim that she had identified her stolen bangles after their recovery from the petitioners.
6. In the opinion of the learned State counsel, the case stood amply proved by the prosecution against the appellants and they were rightly convicted and sentenced. According to him, the statement of Mst. Mehmoodan Begum by itself was enough to sustain their conviction as she had no previous enmity against them, nor there was any reason for her to falsely implicate them for snatching her ornaments and other articles, including prize bonds and some amount in cash.
7. It is an admitted position that neither the police nor Msf. Mehmooda Begum complainant had any animosity, rancor or ill will against the petitioners and there was no reason that they should have falsely implicated them in this case.
There is no substance in the contention that the police wanted to show some performance in this case under the pressure of the complainant, who happened to be the wife of a senior Army officer.
The incident took place in the area within the jurisdiction of Police Station Defence Area, while the petitioners were apprehended by the Police of Wahdat Colony, Lahore, which was under no obligation to detect the crime of Police Station Defence Area and as such there was no question of their showing any performance in this matter under the pressure of the complainant or her husband.
8. As regards the omission on the part of the police to arrange for the identification parade of the petitioners by the complainant, this too does not adversely affect the prosecution case. Ordinarily, when the persons committing the crime are strangers to the eye-witnesses, on the arrest of the former, the police arranges an identification parade in the jail under the supervision of a Magistrate. This is more a rule of prudence than a statutory obligation. Due to certain mal- practices creeping in its procedure with passage of time, it has, to a greater extent lost its efficacy.
For instances, when an accused previously unknown to the eye-witness is arrested by the police, the rule requires that his face should be immediately covered and, after obtaining his judicial remand from the Magistrate, he should be promptly sent to the judicial lock-up for identification parade, but in the majority of cases the police would never care to cover up his face from the public and the eye-witnesses and to claim compliance of requirements of the rule, they would allege that his face was covered. After the arrest, he, in the normal course, is to be kept for some time at the police station for completing papers and then he is taken to the Magistrate in the court premises for obtaining his judicial remand and then he is taken to the judicial lock-up. Even if the police takes some precaution to cover up his face, which by itself is a cruel and derogatory act, being against human dignity, the eye-witnesses, either on account of their own anxiety or with the connivance, of the police, have the chance of seeing him after his arrest and before his confinement in the judicial lock-up. In some cases, where the police is in closer liaison with the complainant party, it affords an opportunity to the witnesses of seeing him. If the police takes all these precautions, the complainant party even through the Jail Authorities manage to sec the accused before hand to identify him. The other side of the picture is that even if the police and the Magistrate take fool-proof precautions to cancel the identity of the accused from his arrest till the identification parade, the accused even then generally allege that they have been shown to the witnesses, because with the passage of time they have come to know the beneficial legal implications of raising such objections before the Magistrate at the time of identification parade.
So the whole process of identification, on account of its cumbersome, rather, to some extent, impracticable procedure, coupled with certain malpractices mentioned above, has become a futile exercise. Therefore, its omission in this case should not adversely affect the prosecution case, more so when its observance more depends upon the honesty and efficiency of some official agencies and they are failing in the performance of their functions. For their failure, the aggrieved person cannot be allowed to suffer. For example, in the instant case if the police has failed to arrange the identification parade, why the complainant lady, who has been wronged so much in her house in the broad day light, should suffer by refusing to redress her grievances on account of the fault of the police? She had no control over the police. Therefore, in the instance case, the omission on the part of the police to arrange identification parade of the petitioners is not injurious to the prosecution case. The complainant was the wife of a senior Army officer and being a respectable and educated lady, having no axe to grind against the petitioners, her statement about the identification of the petitioners, which inspires confidence, cannot be discarded.
11. The next contention of the learned counsel was also without force. No doubt, Mrt. Mehmooda Begum complainant admitted in her statement in the cross-examination that the petitioners had immediately followed her two young maid servants into the house but no further explanation was sought from her as where those two girls had gone when the occurrence began, nor did she further elaborate this fact herself. It is obvious that when the petitioners pulled out their pistols and started removing the ornaments of Mr/.Mehmooda Begum complainant, her two young maid-servants, who were not permanent occurants of the house, must have slipped away. In any case, the statement of the complainant did not require any corroboration by those girls nor from the people of locality, who had allegedly been seeing the fourth culprit keeping vigil outside the house. Due to frequent incident of robberies, dacoities and house trespass, even in broad-day light, as in this case, people feel terrified and nobody is ready to come to the rescue of the victims nor to depose in their favour. If Mst. Mehmooda Begum complainant could not produce her two maid-servants and the people of locality as her witnesses, she is not to blame.
12. As regards the last contention, this too did not cut such ice. It may be kept in mind that it was not a simple case of theft or recovery of stolen property. In fact it was a case of robbery and it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove the recovery of the snatched away articles, though some portion of the stolen articles was recovered and could serve as a corroboration. The complainant has clearly deposed as to how on pistol point the three petitioners removed her ornaments from her person besides taking away some other precious articles, including prize bonds and currency notes. These were the necessary ingrediences of the offence under section 382 PPC and stood duly proved from her solitary statement. Thus even if there was any deficiency in the recovery proceedings of the stolen property or there was any doubt in the identification of such property after its recovery, it did not adversely affect the prosecution case with regard to the commission of offence under section 382 PPC.
13. For various reasons stated above, there is no substance in this revision and the same is dismissed.
14. Before parting with this order, it may be mentioned that it was obviously a case of robbery, punishable under section 392 PPC and house trespass punishable under section 452 PPC, both triable by a Magistrate Section 30 and should have been registered as such but Defence Area police, in order to play down a serious crime, which affects their performance, deliberately registered it as the one under section 382 PPC in order to show it as a lesser offence and submitted the challan purposely to the Magistrate 1st Class who could not award more than three years imprisonment. A copy of this judgment should, therefore, be sent to S.S.P., Lahore for initiating suitable departmental action against the SHO and other police officials concerned, for suppressing a serious crime and to save the petitioners from adequate punishable.