RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- Shamsher Ali was sent up by Police Station Kotwali, Gujranwala, for trial, for an offence under section 392 PPC. Special Courts ( Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, vide its judgment date 10-2-1993, found him guilty and sentenced under section 392 PPC to 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default 3 years R.I. He was however given the benfit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. Convict has appealed. This judgement shall dispace of the same.
Prosecution story in brief as disclosed in complaint Exh.PA, lodged by Munawar Hussain Tammana, was to the effect that he was employed as Cashier in the Head Office Municipal Corporation Gujranwala. One 7-2-1991, at about 6 A.M., the first informant came to office to collect cash regarding the previous night. He was busy in counting the cah. The amount came to Rs. 2,32,967/- When door was opened, two armed persons, one was with klashinkove and the other had pistol entered. Their description was given. They directed the person present there to go into the adjoining room and the door was bolted from outside. After taking the entire cash along with calculator they decamped. Another accused kept on standing on guard in the Verandha.
Muhammad Younas, S.I., PW-5 on 7-2-1991, recorded the statement Exh. PA and send the same for recording of formal FIR. He came to the spot and prepared rough sketch Exh.PC of the place of occurrence. On 11-2-1991 he arrested four persons under section 54 Cr.P.C, but discharged them as they were innocent. Thereafter he handed over the investigation. Shahid Mehboob Khan, Inspector, PW-6, was entrusted with the investigation. He arrested the appellant on 13-4-1991 and send him to Jail on the following day for conducting identification parade. He made an application for holding of identification parade in Central Jail, Gujranwala, on 14-4-1991. After identification parade he obtained remand of Shamsher Ali accused from 30-4-1991 to 11-5-1991 but he could not recover anything. Thereafter he sent him to judicial lock-up. Earlier some accused had been arrested by S.I.
Faruq on 9-4-1991. After usual investigation he challaned the accused.
3. Prosecution in support of its case produced seven witnesses in all. PW-1, Munawar Hussain Tammana had got the case registered. He was Cashier. He identified the appellant in Jail as well.
Abdul Majeed PW-2 was present in Octroi Post with PW-1, He supported the version given in the FIR.
He also joined the identification parade wherein he had correctly identified Shamsher Ali appellant.
Muhammad Ashraf, S.I. PW-3 on receipt of Exh. PA, recorded the formal FIR Exh.PA/1, PW-4 Malik Masood, Magistrate First Class Gujranwala, passed an order Exh.PB/1 remanding him to judicial lock-up on 14-4-1991. Muhammad Younas, S.I. PW-5 had initially investigated the case. Shahid Mehboob Khan, Inspector, PW-6, had investigated the case and challaned the accused. Liaqat Ali, MIC, Gujranwala, PW-7 had supervised the identification parade wherein appellant Shamsher Ali was correctly identified by both the witnesses.
At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence appellant was examination without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. 1 neither appeared in his defence on oath nor produced defence evidence.
It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the cases against the appellant was not proved at all Submitted tat no importance can be attached to the identification parade, because it was established from the record that the appellant had remained in custody with the police for quite sometime before he was sent to jail. Argued that the first information in Court admitted that the police kept on taking the witnesses to different police stations to show every accused who was arrested. Argued that in such circumstances no reliance on identification parade could be placed. Submitted that no role was ascribed to the appellant by the witnesses who identified him. In the absence of the same conviction could not be sustained. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the state.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence withhis assistance. The case hinges on the testimony of Munawar Hussain Tammana and Abdul Majeed, P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively, who were eye-wintesses of the occurrence, and thereafter had identified the accused persons as well. We have carefully gone through the statements of both the witnesses. Munawar Hussain Tammana PW-1 had got the case registered. In cross-examination, he however admitted that he could not identify the accused who robbed the cash. He also admitted in cross- examination that the police used to take them to diferent police station where all the arrested persons were shown to them for identification; this continued for about a month. As far as PW-2, Abdul Majeed is concerned, he identified the accused person but did not ascribe him any role.
There is nothing on the record to indicate who was the one who took away cash.
5. For what has been discussed above, it is clear that no reliance on the statement of Munawar Hussain Tammana can be placed in view of the concession made by him. Even otherwise both the witnesses though identified the appellant yet did not ascribe him any overt act. It is not known whether he was driving the motorcycle or was the one remained outside in Verandha. As has been held in Khadim Hussain Vs. The State (1985 SCM R 721) and Ghulam Rasool and 3 others Vs. State (1988 SCM R 557), simple identification of an accused in identification parade would not be material unless the witnesses inform positively the role of the person so identified. Respectfully relying upon the judgments quoted above, we hold that the case of the prosecution was not free from doubt. Therefore we accept the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal is disposed of.