' JUSTICE MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR (CHAIRMAN)---Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu, Khalid Javaid and Zafar Ali appellants were tried by the learned Special Court for Speedy Trials No, II, Lahore on the allegation that on 14-3-1992 at about 11-00 a.m. They committed the offence of Haraba by forcibly snatching Rs,40,000 in cash and a licensed pistol from Zahid Mahmood and while committing the said offence caused simple and grievous injuries to Zahid Mahmood P,W.
Alternatively they were charged for the offence under section 394 read with section 397/34 of the P.P.C. They were further charged under section 337-D/34 of the P.P.C. For causing hurt to 7ahid Mahmood P.W. By judgment dated 11-11-1992 they were convicted under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 34 of the P.P.C. And each of them punished with amputation of right hand from the wrist and left leg from the ankle subject to confirmation by this Court. They were further convicted under section 337-F(vi)/34 of the P.P.C. And ordered to pay Rs,20,000 each as Daman and suffer R.I. For seven years each. The entire amount of Daman was ordered to be paid to Zahid Mahmood P.W. The convicts have appealed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14-3-1992, Zahid Mahmood P.W. Was present at his house with Muhammad Sarwar Bhatti P.W. Who had come to see him. Zahid Mahmood had to pay Rs,40,000 to Rana Muhammad Akram. He took Rs,40,000 and his licensed pistol and in the company of Muhammad Sarwar P.W. Started for the Fertilizer Agency situate at Adda Chak No, 46/SB to pay the amount to aforesaid Rana Muhammad Akram. At about 11-00 a.m. When they reached the Morr of Chak No, 45/SB the appellants namely Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu armed with .12 bore gun, Khalid Javaid alias Piddi armed with Datar and Zafar Ali empty-handed confronted them. Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu appellant shouted and commanded Zahid Mahmood to deliver the cash to them or face death. Khalid Javaid gave him blows on his face and head from the blunt side of Datar while Zafar Ali snatched the cash and pistol from him. Zahid Mahmood and Muhammad Sarwar put up resistance whereupon Muhammad Ashraf fired at them with his gun but it missed. Zahid Mahmood fell down during the scuffle upon which Khalid Javaid gave blows on his legs with the sharp side of Datar. During the occurrence Muhammad Ashraf appellant kept on shouting that whosoever came near would be done away with. The occurrence was also witnessed by Razaqat Ali P.W. And Muhammad Akram (not produced). After the occurrence the accused persons went away taking their weapons and the booty (cash and pistol) with them.
' Khurshid Munawwar father of Zahid Mahmood injured reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and took him to hospital in Chak No, 46/SB with the help of Muhammad Sarwar, Razaqat and Muhammad Akram. After the medical examination Muhammad Sarwar P.W. Went to Police Station Pul Giarah and reported the occurrence to Muhammad Akbar Abbas SHO vide F.I.R.
Exh. PD at 12-00 noon. He also produced the medico-legal report of Zahid Mahmood Exh. PA before him.
3. After recording the F.I.R. The SHO reached the spot and prepared rough site plan Exh. PN, then he reached the hospital and inquired from the doctor about the fitness of Zahid Mahmood to make statement to which he replied in the negative. On 15-3-1992 he again made a similar inquiry from the doctor and on receiving affirmative reply he recorded the statement of Zahid Mahmood P.W.
He arrested the accused persons on 29-3-1992. Khalid Javed accused, while in custody, led to the recovery of Rs,20,000 cash from an Attache Case lying in his house vide memo. Exh. PG. He also produced bandolier P6 containing .30 bore pistol P5 and seven bullets P7/1-7 vide memo. Exh. PH.
He also produced Datar P8 after taking it from underneath the steel box vide memo. Exh. PI.
' Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu led to the recovery of Rs,10,000 from his house vide memo. Exh. RI.
He also produced unlicensed .12 bore gun P10 vide memo. Exh. PK. Zafar All accused led to the recovery of Rs,10,000 from a box lying in his house vide memo. Exh. PL. He also produced .30 bore pistol P1 of Zahid Mahmood alongwith 8 bullets P3/1-8 contained in bandolier P2. These recoveries were witnessed by Muhammad Shafiq, Abid Hussain and Saghir Ahmad ASI. After the usual investigation the accused persons were challaned.
4. On 14-3-1992 at 11-30 a.m. Dr. Hussain Ahmad Madni Medical Officer RHC Chak No, 46/SB, District Sargodha examined Zahid Mahmood P.W. And found the following injuries on his person:-- (1). A lacerated wound 5 c.m. Xl c.m. x bone deep on top and right side of head 9 c.m. Above the right ear; (2). A contusion mark 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left side of forehead; (3). A contusion mark 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. Over the bridge of nose; (4). A contusion mark 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. On left upper lip; (5). An incised wound 9-1/2 c.m. x 3-1/2 c.m. Up to bone on the lower and outer side of right buttock.
Corresponding cut was present on the Shalwar; (6). An incised wound 4-1/2 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone cut on front and upper 1/3rd of right lower leg.
Corresponding cut was present at Shalwar; (7). An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone cut on the front and lower 1/3rd of right lower leg 1 c.m.
Below injury No, 6, corresponding cut was present on the Shalwar; (8). An incised wound 2-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x up to bone on the front and lower 1/3rd of right lower leg, corresponding cut was present on Shalwar; (9). An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Up to bone on the inner side and upper 1/3rd of right lower leg.
Corresponding cut was present on Shalwar; (10). Multiple abrasions on front of left knee-joint.
' Zahid Mahmood was unconscious. His blood pressure was low, skin was cold and clammy and his condition was not satisfactory. Injuries Nos.. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 were caused by blunt weapon and rest by sharp-edged weapon. Duration of injuries was about half an hour. On receipt of X-ray film injuries Nos. 6 and 7 were declared grievous.
5. In support of its case the prosecution examined three eye-witnesses namely Zahid Mahmood, Muhammad Sarwar and Razaqat Ali. The prosecution also relied on the medical evidence and recoveries.
6. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against them. Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu appellant when asked why this case against him, made the following statement:-- "Eight/ten years ago, Khurshid Munawar, father of Zahid Mehmood P.W., Tahir brother of Khurshid Munawar and I caused injuries to Rao Azmat an uncle of Khurshid Munawar and Tahir and a case was registered. We were challaned but were acquitted. Khurshid Munawar and Tahir wanted to keep me with them to which I had not agreed. Two and 2-1/2 years ago, Zahid Mahmood P.W. Gave me beating. He was accompanied by some other persons. I was medically examined. I lodged F.I.R.
For that occurrence. I produced attested copy of F.I.R. Exh. DF and copy of medico-legal reports DG and DH. Zahid Mahmood and his family have political influence whereas I am a poor person. I have been falsely involved in this case."
' Khalid Javaid appellant stated that he was falsely involved as he had "acquaintance" with Muhammad Ashraf accused. Zafar Ali accused when asked why this case against him made the following statement:-- "My father had been contesting election and when I came of age, I saw the complainant party opposing my father in the election. Rao Tahir uncle of Zahid Mahmood P.W. Contested election for District Council seat. Sardar Tariq Saghir was his opposing candidate. We supported Sardar Tariq Saghir. Shabbir Gujjar contested election against Abdul Haq Bhatti. We supported Shabbir while the complainant party supported Abdul Haq Bhatti. During election, we had exchanged abuses with the complainant party. The complainant party stopped me while I was driving tractor in front of house of the complainant. A fight took place and we slapped each other. The complainant party conveyed wrong information to the police that I was in possession of Klashnikov. The police visited my house several times and took me along but after detaining me for two three days, allowed me to go. Rao Azmat, whom Khurshid Munawar Tahir and Ashraf accused gave beating had cordial relations with us. The complainant tried to involve me earlier in false cases but remained unsuccessful. I know nothing about the case and I have been falsely involved in this case."
' No evidence was led in defence.
7. Relying on the prosecution evidence on the record the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.
8. Zahid Mahmood, Muhammad Sarwar and Razaqat All P.Ws. Supported the prosecution version as detailed in the earlier portion of this judgment. They were cross-examined at length but nothing useful to the defence could be elicited from their statements. Their evidence is consistent on main features of the case. There is also no evidence on the record to show that they had any motive to falsely implicate the appellants in a heinous crime like the present one. During the arguments the learned counsel for the appellants frankly conceded that Muhammad Sarwar and Razaqat had no enmity whatsoever with any of the appellants. About Zahid Mahmood he submitted that he was inimical towards Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu appellant and he based his submissions on the medico-legal report Exh. DG dated 12-4-1989 of aforesaid appellant and the statement of Zahid Mahmood that he too was medically examined on 12-4-1989. A suggestion was put to him that he had a fight with Muhammad Ashraf but he denied it as incorrect and stated that there was a fight between Muhammad Ashraf and one Shafiq Gujjar and since he knew both the parties he tried to separate them and during the course received some injuries. Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu in his statement under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. Stated that "Two and 2-1/2 years ago Zahid P.W. Gave me beating. He was accompanied by some other persons. I was medically examined. I produced attested copy of F.I.R. Exh. DF and copy of medico-legal reports DG and DH." Medico-legal report Exh. DG is of Muhammad Ashraf appellant and Exh. DH relates to the medical examination of Zahid Mahmood. Both are dated 12-4-1989. The Exh. DF mentioned by him in his statement was lodged by one Rao Akhtar Hussain against certain persons including Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu appellant and pertained to an incident dated 9-2-1982. It has nothing to do with the incident in which Zahid Mahmood and Muhammad Ashraf sustained injuries. Zahid Mahmood has given a reasonable explanation about his injuries in respect of which he was medically examined on 12-4-1989. The learned counsel for the appellants admitted that the statement of Zahid Mahmood that no case was registered about the incident of 12-4-1989 was correct. Zahid Mahmood had stamp of injuries on him, therefore, his presence at the spot is fully established.
Razaqat Ali had a shop at the Adda where the occurrence took place and he is, therefore a natural witness of the occurrence. No suggestion was put to him that he was not running any shop at the said Adda. Muhammad Sarwar P.W. Has also given a reasonable explanation for his presence at the spot.
9. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that Zahid Mahmood has given an exaggerated version of the occurrence. According to him a case of mere hurt has been given the colour of a dacoity/robbery. He pointed out that Zahid Mahmood in his own deposition had stated that he had supplied stone to one Qurban Cheema and received payment of Rs,40,000 a day before the occurrence whereas the investigating officer had stated that Zahid Mahmood had informed him that he had drawn the money from the bank. On the basis of this discrepancy it was contended that the prosecution version of snatching of money was a fabrication. The contention is without any substance. Zahid Mahmood was not confronted with any such statement as was stated by the investigating officer to have been made by him before him (the investigating officer). Even otherwise the said statement is hit by the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 162 of the Cr.P.C. And cannot be used for that purpose.
10. In this case the occurrence took place at about 11-00 a.m. And the injured was received in the hospital at 11-15 a.m. He was medically examined at 11-35 a.m. According to the Medical Officer the duration of injuries was half an hour which lends support to the prosecution version regarding time of occurrence. The F.I.R. Giving all the details including the names of the culprits, the weapons used by them and manner of commission of robbery was lodged at the police station situate at a distance of 7 kelometres at 12-00 noon without gaining any time for deliberation. The medico-legal report was produced before the Sub-Inspector at the time of the lodging of the F.I.R.
11. The ocular evidence furnished by independent and disinterested witnesses having no motive for false implication which alone could form a sound basis for conviction was further corroborated by the recovery of robbed money from the appellants and that of the pistol of the victim from Zafar All appellant. Before convicting the appellants the learned trial Court considered all the relevant provisions of law including section 10, 11, 16 read with sections 7 and 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which cater for situations where Hadd shall not be imposed and/or enforced and on proved facts rightly concluded that the offence committed by the appellants squarely feel within the ambit of section 17(3) of the Ordinance. The only punishment provided by section 17(3) is the amputation of right hand from the wrist and left leg from the ankle which has been imposed by the learned trial Court and we confirm the same. There is no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed.