' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM, J.--- Appellants Roshan Ali Shah and Wagan have been convicted under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 395, P.P.C. By Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhiaro and each of them has been sentenced to suffer R.I. For four years with fine of Rs, one thousand or in default to undergo R.I. For four months more.
2. Briefly the case of prosecution is that on 21-6-1981 at 23-15 hours, complainant Ghulam Sarwar alongwith his friend Abdul Wahid was driving motor-cycle. When they reached Kari Mori, there appeared three persons.
' They stopped their motor-cycle and attacked them with their weapons. It is alleged that out of above three culprits one boy drove away motor-cycle while remaining accused who were armed with knife and hatchet took their personal search and robbed cash and wrist-watch. Thereafter they went away. Ghulam Sarwar complainant went and informed his cousin Ali Nawaz and who advised him to lodge report. He went at Police Station Kandhiaro on the same night at 15-30 hours and lodged F.I.R. During investigation police arrested the appellants and were sent up for trial.
3. Prosecution has examined complainant Ghulam Sarwar, eye-witness Abdul Wahid, Mashir Shah Muhammad, Investigation Officer Ashiq Hussain and A.C.M. Akram Saeed.
4. P.W.1 Abdul Wahid has stated that complainant Ghulam Sarwar is his friend and about eight years ago he alongwith Ghulam Sarwar went on motorcycle to Kandhiaro for making purchase at noon time. At about 20-00 hours they were going to their village on motor-cycle. When they reached Kari Mori, on Rohri Main Canal, there appeared three persons and blocked the road due to which Ghulam Sarwar stopped the motor-cycle, and the said three culprits attacked them. One had a knife, one had hatchet and third was empty-handed. Their faces were not covered by anything but unmuffled. One of them drove away motor-cycle, while two others took their search and snatched wrist watch and Rs,100 from Ghulam Sarwar and Rs,1,300 and wrist watch from him.
They were later on released. They came to the village and gave the facts to All Nawaz Rajpur who advised Ghulam Sarwar to lodge the report. He has stated that Ghulam Sarwar went to the police station, while he remained at village. He has stated that identification parade was held before Head Munshi T.C.M. Kandhiaro after 7/8 days of the incident and he identified the persons in the parade. He has stated that Roshan Ali Shah and Wagan present in the Court are the real culprits and they were picked by him in the identification parade but third accused in not real culprit.
5. Complainant Ghulam Sarwar has supported the contents of FIR. And stated that he and Abdul Wahid were coming on motor-cycle from Kandhiar o, when three persons without muffled faces blocked the road, stopped them and robbed their motor-cycle. Thereafter one of them drove away motor-cycle while two others took their search and snatched wrist watch and Rs,100 from him and Rs,1,300 and one wrist watch from Abdul Wahid. He came to village and informed his cousin Ali Nawaz who advised him to lodge the report. Therefore, he went to police station and lodged report as Exh.14. He took the police at the place of Wardat. He has stated that he picked up three accused out of thirteen in the identification parade. He has given the details and stated that Roshan Ali Shah and Wagan present in the Court are same.
6. P.W.2 Shah Muhammad, Mashir, has also supported the case and stated that he was Mashir of Wardat and produced Mashirnama as Exh.9. He has stated that police arrested accused Roshan All Shah and Ghulam Murtaza in his presence and produced Mashirnama Exh.10. Police also arrested accused Wagan and prepared Mashirnama Exh.11. He was also Mashir of identification parade and stated that it was held under supervision of Assistant Mukhtiarkar and T.C.M. Kandhiaro. The complainant had correctly picked up three persons in the identification parade and such Mashirnama was prepared which he signed and produced as Exh.12. He has stated that police secured wrist watch from Wagan at the time of arrest.
7. P.W.4 Ashiq Hussain has stated that on 21-6-1981 he was S.H.O. At Police Station Kandhiaro, where Ghulam Sarwar appeared and lodged the report as Exh.14. He visited the Wardat and prepared Mashirnama Exh.9 and on 13-7-1981 he arrested accused Roshan Ali Shah and Ghulam Murtaza and prepared Mashirnama Exh.10. On 23-7-1981 he arrested accused Wagan and produced Mashirnama Exh.11. He arranged identification parade before the Assistant Mukhtiarkar and T.C.M.
Kandhiaro. He has also lated that on 26-7-1981 he also arrested other accused and produced Ghulam Murtaza before Mukhtiarkar for confession and submitted challan of accused Roshan Ali Shah, Ghulam Murtaza, Wagan and Shah Nawaz, while Master Mureed was shown in column No,2.
8. The appellants have denied the allegation and stated that no identification parade was held and they have been falsely implicated in the case. They have also given their statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But have not examined any person in defence.
9. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Sial, counsel for the appellants has mainly attacked the identification and submitted that the person who supervised the parade has not been examined. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this piece of evidence. It is further argued that the co-accused has been acquitted by the trial Court.
10. Mr. M.A.I. Qarni, counsel for the Slate has supported the conviction and stated that the case has been proved.
11. The incident took place on 21-6-1981 and report was lodged in which the identification marks of the accused have been given. This is a case of robbery (Harrabah). Complainant Ghulam Sarwar has supported the case and in the cross-examination nothing has come on record for implicating both the appellants falsely. It has been suggested that he has been falsely implicated but no enmity has been proved with Shah Nawaz Ghanghro P.W. Abdul Wahid is not related to complainant. He has supported the case and it was suggested to him in cross-examination that no such robbery was committed but the witness has denied the suggestion. This witness has no reason to falsely implicate the appellants. P.W. Shah Muhammad has also fully supported. The evidence of witnesses has been attacked that he has been falsely implicated in the case as the appellants belong to Ali Nawaz party. Complainant and Abdul Wahid have picked up both the appellants during the identification parade. It is argued that Head Munshi was not examined. It is not necessary to examine each and every witness. We have no reason to disbelieve two eye- witnesses. We are of the opinion that appellants have rightly been convicted. Consequently their appeal is dismissed. They are given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.