' Lal alias Laloo appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan for an offence under section 17, Harrabah Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 307, 341 and 411/34, P.P.C. With the allegation that he alongwith Nazar Hussain P.O. On 18-6-1990 at about 11-00 p.m. While armed with carbine and dagger forcibly snatched the motor-cycle from Saeed Ahmad Shah, complainant P.W.2, by making show of force and putting him into wrongful restraint and also, in furtherance of their common intention they made assault upon Saeed Ahmad Shah and Dr. Sharif P.W. In the manner that Lal appellant fired at them with such intention and knowledge that if by that firing any of the P.Ws. Was dead would be guilty of murder.
2. Vide judgment, dated 9-7-1992 Lal alias Laloo was convicted under section 392, P.P.C. And was sentenced to undergo 6 years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 and in case of non-payment of fme of further undergo one year R.I. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. And was sentenced to undergo 6 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,10,000 and in case of non-payment of fine he was to undergo R.I. For one year more. He was also found guilty under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo 2 years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,2,000. In case of non-payment of fine he was to undergo six months' R.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, he was acquitted from the charge of section 341, P.P.C. He was found entitled to the benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C.
3. Case F.I.R. No,114 of 1990 dated 18-6-1990 was registered at Police Station Makhdoom Rashid, District Multan on the statement Exh.PA of Saeed Ahmad Shah, complainant/P.W.2 under the above-noted sections.
4. The case of the prosecution as per statement Exh.PA of the complainant is that on the night between 18-6-1990, he was going from Multan to Makhdoom Rashid to his brick-kiln by his Motor- cycle No,9533/VR but in the way, its petrol was finished. He started on foot with his motor-cycle and at about 11 p.m. When reached near Military Farm on G.T. Road, Vehari, from a deserted Khola two persons namely Nazar Hussain co-accused and Lal appellant came out and they inquired from him as to where he was going and what was doing. The complainant further stated that he told them that he was going to Makhdoom Rashid but the petrol of his motor-cycle having finished he therefore was going on foot. The complainant stepped forward and meanwhile both the said persons put carbine .12 bore and dagger on his temporal region and asked him if he raised alarm, would be done to death and directed to hand over the motor-cycle to them. The complainant further stated that Nazar Hussain co-accused caught hold the motor-cycle from him and took it towards the deserted Khola and after parking it there, came back and in the meanwhile, Lal appellant remained standing in the aforesaid position putting his carbine on his temporal region.
The complainant further stated that both the said persons then dragged him to the Khola and started searching him. Lal appellant took out from the pocket of the complainant Rs,7 and removed the silver ring from the finger of his hand besides the silver Karra. Nazar Hussain accused took out Rs,2,000 from his other pocket and after the Lal appellant went out from the said Khola while Nazar Hussain remained with the complainant having dagger with him. The complainant further stated that Lal appellant came back after some time and inquired about the papers of the motor-cycle, upon which, he showed his ignorance as the motor-cycle belonged to his brother. The P.W.2 further stated that he was kept there by the said persons for about half an hour when he asked for urination. He was taken out for the said purpose when all of a sudden, an oil tanker came there and the complainant reached on the mettled road. During struggle, the shirt of the complainant was torn. The complainant further stated that the oil tanker was stopped and its contractor alighted down and at that time, the accused who were coming towards his side, ran away. Saeed Ahmad Shah P.W.2 further stated that he boarded the said oil tanker and went to Basti Gharibabad where he narrated the occurrence to Sharif Hussain P.W. Who then got seated his brother Manzoor Hussain and Khuda Bakhsh on the rear seat of his motorcycle and started towards the place of occurrence. The complainant further stated that he also started towards the place of occurrence on foot and when they covered some distance they saw that both the accused were coming on the motor-cycles one after the other. Lal appellant was sitting on the motor-cycle of the complainant which fallen down the motor-cycle of the accused. Lal appellant then made a fire- shot with his carbine but luckily it did not hit to anybody. Sharif P.W. Caught hold Lal appellant, upon which Lal appellant gave him butt blow of carbine on his forehead. Nazar Hussain co-accused ran towards the northern side while Lal appellant was apprehended and meanwhile, police party also reached there. Lal appellant alongwith carbine and motor-cycle was produced before the police.
The complainant also produced his torn clothes before the police.
5. Nasiruddin Inspector P.W.12 was on patrol duty at night hours on 17-6-1990 when he received an information about this occurrence and he reached Basti Gharibabad when Saeed Ahmad Shah P.W.2 met him and made statement Exh.PA before him. The complainant also produced his shirt P.4 and Shalwar P.5 which was taken into possession by the Inspector vide memo Exh.PD. The complainant also produced before him carbine P3 and one empty cartridge P.6 snatched from the appellant which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PE. The complainant, Dr. Muhammad Sharif and other P.Ws. Produced Lal appellant before the police to whom they apprehended him at the spot who was arrested by the Inspector. On his personal search one live cartridge Exh.P.12 was recovered from his pocket which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PK. Some currency notes were also recovered from the appellant which were secured vide memo. Exh.PL. The police also took into possession motor-cycle VR-9533 P.1 vide memo Exh.PB and another Motor-cycle 9890-NHH P.2 vide memo Exh.PC. The police also took into possession Safa P.11 vide memo Exh.PJ and prepared the site plan. Saeed Ahmad Shah complainant was got medically examined.
' The investigation was then entrusted to Muhammad Anwar S.I. P.W.3. He apprehended Nazar Hussain co-accused on 26-9-1990 who led to the recovery of dagger P.10 on 28-9-1990 which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PH. The investigation then was handed over to Muhammad Hanif, A.S.I. P.W.4 and after that it was taken over by Abdul Aziz, Inspector P.W.9, Nazar Hussain also got recovered silver ring P.8 and one Silver Kara (bangle) buried outside the deserted Khola which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PF by Abdul Aziz, Inspector which was attested by Ashiq Hussain P.W.7. This Inspector after completing the investigation challaned the appellant.
6. Dr. Ghazanfar Abbas, P.W.11 had medically examined Saeed Ahmad P.W.2 on 18-6-1990 and found four injuries on his person which were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Exh.PM is his report. This doctor also examined Sharif Hussain P.W. And found one lacerated wound on his forehead which was caused by blunt weapon and the injury was simple in nature. Exh.PN is the report.
7. In order to substantiate the charge against the appellant the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all including the formal witnesses, Saeed Ahmad Shah, the complainant, Dr. Sharif, the eye- witness, the witnesses of recovery, the Medical Officers and the Investigating Officers. The case of Nazar Hussain was separated under section 512, Cr.P.C. So the case was closed by the prosecution on 24-6-1992.
8. When confronted with the prosecution evidence during his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. Lal appellant took up the following plea:-- ' I myself my co-accused Nazar had been working as labourers at the brick kiln of Saeed Ahmad Shah P.W. In Mauza Jalalabad and we had been playing a leading part in the Union formed by the labourers and in order to let down me and my co-accused the complainant who had been nourishing grudge and enmity with us by joining hands with Muhammad Sharif Dr. And Khuda Bakhsh P.W. And with the connivance of the police cooked up a false story and the present case was registered which is absolutely false and I was got arrested from the brick-kiln in this case.
Neither carbine or cartridge or empty or motor-cycles or Rs,7 were recovered from me. All the P.Ws.
Are interested to get myself convicted in the present case."
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court has erred in believing the prosecution evidence which is replete with contradictions and discrepancies and is not worthy of reliance. He maintained that the prosecution story is highly improbable and the same had not been proved against the appellant by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly it was argued that as the appellant has been arrested at the spot so if the conviction is maintained the sentence recorded against him may be reduced which is too severe in the given circumstances of this case.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and repelled the arguments on merits advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he conceded on the point of sentence if that is reduced.
11. After having heard both sides I have gone through the prosecution evidence very minutely and have given my earnest consideration to the arguments. I find that the prosecution has proved its case to its hilt against the appellant. Evidence of P.W.2 Saeed Ahmad Shah stands fully corroborated by P.W.5, Dr. Sharif Hussain and Khuda Bakhsh P.W.6 who were independent witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the versions of these P.Ws. When they had sustained injuries and their testimony is supported by doctor P.W.11. I fmd that the eye-witness account rendered by P.Ws. 2, 5 and 6 is consistent and cogent and stands corroborated on material points, regarding the occurrence and the recoveries. The recoveries of motor-cycles P.1 and P.2, Safa P.11 and live cartridge P.12 from the appellant on his personal search fully implicate him in this case. The important aspect of this case is that the appellant was apprehended by the P.Ws. At the spot and all incriminating articles were recovered from him. I fully endorse the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court and maintain the conviction of the appellant.
12. While coming on the point of sentence I am of the view that the elements to be considered for assessing the quantum of sentence are: (a) The nature of the offence. (b) The circumstances in which it was committed, (c) The degree of deliberation shown by the offender, (d) The provocation which he received, (e) The antecedents of the prisoner upto the time of sentence and (f) His age and character.
13. In this case the appellant was arrested on 18-6-1990 as he was apprehended at the spot and since then he has remained in the jail as under-trial prisoner or convict prisoner. He was given the benefit as provided under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The result, therefore, is that he has undergone about three years and four months of his sentence. Certainly the punishment in such cases should be deterrent because the increase of the crime of dacoity is a circumstance which is relevant for the quantum of sentence but in this case when he has already undergone three years and four months so in my view that is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
14. Resultantly the conviction against the appellant is maintained under sections 392, 307 and 411, P.P.C. But his sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine in all the three counts shall be maintained and also the sentence awarded to him in case of non-payment of fine.
Sentence reduced.