RAJA AFRAS1AB KHAN, J.- The respondents, Muhammad Hanif, Amanat Ali, Rehmat Ali and Muhammad Nazir Ahmad were acquitted of the charge under sections 302/34 PPC read with section 394 PPC by the learned Judge Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No. II, Lahore by giving them the benefit of doubt, vide his judgment dated 2.3.1988. The Slate has challenged the judgment of acquittal by filing Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 1988, before this Court.
2. The brief facts arc that the complainant, Rafaqat Ali Suleria was an employee of L.D.A, and as such was posted as Assistant Director L.D.A. 140-A Shadman Lahore to perform his functions. Sh.
Zahid was also an employee and was doing his duties as a Horticulture Supervisor, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore. They used to collect the money to give it as salaries to the employees of the L. D.A, while sitting in the nursery of Jchanzeb Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore. On 7.1.1987, the complainant obtained a sum of Rs. 275 868.00 and gave it to Sh. Mohammad Zahid for its onward disbursement to the various employees of the L.D.A, as their pay. On that date, the money could not be given to the employees because it was received late and as such it was retained by Sh.
Mohammad Zahid for its distribution amongst the employees on the next day. On 8.1.1987, at about 7.00 A.M. The complainant reached the aforesaid place with the cash. Mohammad Younas, Liaquat Ali Mali and Khadim Hussain Chowkidar were already present there and wailing for the arrival of Sh.
Mohammad Zahid. At about 7.15 A.M. Sheikh Mohammad Zahid came at the spot on a rickshaw No. 1308/LEY. It was being driven by Zafar Iqbal. Sheikh Mohammad Zahid got down from the rickshaw.
He was standing in front of it in order to pay the fare to the driver when all of a sudden, two unknown accused who were wearing shirts and shalwars and had wrapped themselves with chadars, emerged from a side of the road. They look out their i.e arms and tried to forcibly snatch the leather bag containing money from Sh. Mohammad Zahid. However, he resisted the attempt of the assailants. Both the accused fired from their weapons from close range which hit the head of Sh. Mohammad Zahid. They succeeded in snatching the bag. They ran away with the money.
Sheikh Mohammad Zahid fell down and died at the spot. The witnesses did not dare to chase the assailants for fear of being attacked by them. However, Zafar Iqbal rickshaw driver chased the accused for some distance but they succeeded in running away while mounting their motorcycles which were standing at some distance along with two other unknown accused. Accordingly, the case was registered with Police Station Nawan Kot on the statement of the complainant on 8.1.1987.
3. On the basis of evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced Ali Muhammad and Uaqat Ali appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 305/1988 under the aforesaid charge. Nevertheless, he acquitted the respondents by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against them on the basis of reliable evidence. It was observed by the learned Judge that the rickshaw Driver Zafar Iqbal, a star witness in the case identified Muhammad Hanif and Amanat Ali accused in Jail but while appearing in Court he did not support the prosecution case. It was also held that recovery of money from the respondents could not be proved because the witnesses from the locality were not produced by the prosecution in support of its case. To begin with, in the F.I.R, it was mentioned that only four persons were present at the spot who participated and committed the offences. Despite this fact having b^:n mentioned in the F.I.R., during investigation, it came to light that two other accused were also involved in the Commission of the crime. It is really had to believe in the present state of affairs that the respondents also committed the offence along with the convicts. The fact that some money was recovered from them was not itself a valid ground to convict them. It may be noted that none from the locality was produced to prove the recovery of money. This was so required under section 103 Cr.P.C. 1898 because the recovery was effected from the living place of the respondents. We are, indeed, convinced with the reasons already given by the learned Judge in acquitting the respondents. The judgment of acquittal is really reasoned one inasmuch as every piece of prosecution evidence was considered and rejected by the learned trial Judge. In our view the judgment of acquittal of the respondents is based on the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Sikandar and another Vs. Mamaraz Khan and others (P.L.D. 1985 S.C. 11). We have not thus been persuaded to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal. This being so, there is no substance in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.