' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.--Mukhtar Ahmad son of Kabir Ahmad was tried alongwith two others under section 392, P.P.C. Read with section 397, P.P.C. By the Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No,1, Lahore. By judgment, dated 20-11-1988 he convicted him under section 392, P.P.C. Read with section 397, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 8 years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default to undergo two years' R.I. He was declined the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
' He has appealed.
2. The prosecution case is that on 8-8-1988 Malik Mushtaq Ahmad P.W.2 accompanied by his servant Nazir Ahmad P.W.1 proceeded to Mandi Faiz Abad to recover the sale proceeds of the goods sold to shopkeepers on credit and collected Rs,50,275. He placed that amount in bag P.1 and came to Bus Stand, Faiz Abad for going to Sharaqpur. Both of them were present at the Bus Stand when at about 5-30 p.m. Mukhtar Ahmed appellant armed with a Chhuri came there and tried to snatch bag from the complainant. The latter resisted but the appellant threatened him with Chhuri and succeeded in snatching the bag from him and fleeing from the spot. The complainant and others tried to chase him but they were threatened by his co-accused, namely, Saeed Ahmad and Iftikhar Hussain who were carrying fire-arms. The occurrence was also witnessed by Talib Hussain and Safdar Ali.
3. Malik Mushtaq Ahmad reported the matter to Police Station Mandi Faiz Abad by making F.I.R.
Exh.PA.
4. After recording F.I.R. Syed Shaukat Ali, S.H.O. P.W.4 reached the spot and prepared the site plan.
During investigation, he raided the house of the accused and arrested them on 14-8-1988. Mukhtar Ahmad while in police custody led to the recovery of bag P.1 containing a sum of Rs,50,275 and Chhuri P.12. The recoveries were effected in the presence of Shabbir Ahmad P.W.3 and Nazir Ahmad A.S.I. (not examined). Malik Mushtaq Ahmad identified the recovered articles including chit P.8, note book P.9 and photo copies of his identity card P.10 and P.11. Following the completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned.
5. At the trial; the prosecution examined Nazir Ahmad P.W.1 and Malik Mushtaq Ahmad P.W.2 as the eye-witnesses. Shabbir Ahmad P.W.3 and Syed Shaukat Ali Shah, S.H.O. Police Station Mandi Faiz Abad were examined to prove the recoveries at the instance of the appellant.
6. Relying on the evidence of the aforementioned P.Ws., learned trial Court convicted Mukhtar Ahmad appellant but acquitted his co-accused by giving them the benefit of doubt.
7. It is contended that there is a serious doubt about the identity of the appellant. A reference has been made to the statement of Malik Mushtaq Ahmad complainant in this context. In the course of cross-examination he stated that the name of the appellant was told to him by many persons including one Muhammad Iqbal but Muhammad Iqbal appearing as C.W.1 could not identify the culprits who had snatched the bag from the hands of Malik Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. It is further contended that the appellant is also entitled to acquittal because on the same evidence two of his co-accused were acquitted.
8. The case of the present petitioner stands on different footing from his co-accused, for, both the eye-witnesses had expressed their inability to identify them at the time of occurrence. Furthermore, the recoveries alleged to have been effected from them had no nexus with the case. But so far as the appellant is concerned he is named in the F.I.R. Which was promptly lodged, as the principal accused. It was he who was alleged to have snatched the bag from the possession of the complainant containing ks.50,275 and photo copies of his identity card which were later on recovered from his house. The recovery of bag/Thela P.1 containing cash at the instance of the appellant stands fully established by the evidence of Shabbir Ahmad P.W.3 and Shaukat Ali Shah, S.H.O. P.W.4. Although they were cross-examined at length but their evidence could not be shattered. They are consistent about the mode and manner of recovery. The complainant had absolutely no enmity with the appellant to falsely involve him in the case of the present nature. The subject-matter of the C offence being a substantial amount of cash could not be falsely planted on the appellant.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution case stands fully established. However, the offence under section 397, P.P.C. Does not stand established as no attempt was made to cause death or grievous hurt to any person at the time of the commission of the offence. Consequently, we set aside his conviction under section 397, P.P.C. But maintain his conviction under section 392, P.P.C.
And reduce his sentence to 5 years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For one year with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.