The appellants, Attiq-ur-Rehman, Waheed Habib Ullah and Tariq Ramey, were convicted and sentenced to ten years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs.50,000 each or in default thereof to suffer further R.I. For two years each under section 394, P.P.C. For having committed an offence of robbery, by the learned Judge, Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Gujranwala, vide his judgment dated 8-8-1993. They have challenged their conviction and sentence by filing this appeal before this Court.
2.The facts, in brief, are that on 3-10-1991 at 7-45 a.m., the complainant, Qazi Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.3), Ch. Muhammad Hameed S.D.O., Zulfiqar, Ghulam Safdar Driver, Riasat Dafadar and one guard were going to Nandipur in an official vehicle No.LHG-7234 and on their way, when they crossed the overhead bridge of Gujranwala Bypass, all of a sudden a Suzuki Car of white colour without number plate rashly came from behind in which 3 persons were sitting.
One of them was putting on Pant-Bushirt while the remaining two were wearing ordinary Shalwar Qameez. They were of medium size and of wheatish colour. The complainant claimed that the accused could be identified by him in case, they were brought before him. The complainant stated that his Car No.LHG-7234 was stopped by hitting it from behind by the accused. The accused also injured Ghulam Safdar Driver, Zulfiqar, with the butts of their pistols. The complainant was also given a fist blow on his mouth. The accused forcibly opened the doors of the car and snatched and took away a brief case containing a sum of Rs3,13,190 which money was to be distributed as salary amongst the members of the staff of Irrigation Research Institute, Nandipur. While leaving, the accused also took away a bag in which the complainant had kept his papers and other articles. On the statement of Qazi Manzoor Ahmad (Exh.PC), formal F.I.R. (Exh.PC/1) was registered by Muhammad Siddique, A.S.I. On 3-10-1991.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced Dr. Fazal Hussain M.O. D.H.Q. Hospital, Gujranwala (P.W.1), Dr. Abdul Aziz Tarrar, Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Gujranwala (P.W.2), Qazi Manzoor Ahmad (P.W3), Ghulam Safdar (P.W.4), Riasat A.I (P.W.5), Khuda Dad, A.S.I. (P.W.6), Muhammad Siddique, A.S.I. Traffic Staff (P.W.7), Muhammad Pervaiz Butt (P.W.8), Ch. Liaqat A.I, M.I.C.
(P.W.9), Muhammad Ismail Qamar, Manager, U.B.L. (P.W.10) and Zulfiqar A.I Inspector (P.W.11).
Muhammad Azam, A.S.I./Moharrar was summoned to appear as Court--witness. The appellant, Ateeq-ur-Rehman denied the allegation in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And took the plea that he and his co accused resided in the Colony of Research Institute of Nandipur, Gujranwala. His mother so employed in the Government School of the Colony while Waheed Habib Ullah and Tariq Ramey are the permanent employees of the Research Institute, Nandipur. He stated that he was taken into custody alongwith Tariq Ramey and Waheed Habib Ullah from their residences on the night between 13/14-10-91. He also stated that the proceedings of identification parade were fictitious inasmuch as they were shown to the prosecution witnesses in the police station. He claimed to be the owner of the money allegedly recovered from him as a result of coercive measures. To the same effect is the statements of the other accused. However, no evidence in defence was led by the accused.
4. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as already mentioned above.
5. It is argued that there is not a shred of evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime inasmuch as it is difficult to believe that the accused being employees of the Irrigation Research Institute were not identified by the prosecution witnesses during the incident. It is, therefore, contended that the appellants had falsely been implicated in the case for having committed no offence. The learned State Counsel supported the conviction and sentence of the appellants by adopting the reasons given in the judgment by the learned trial Judge.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the entire record with their assistance. In our view, the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. During the identification parade, the appellants were identified by the witnesses. It is in the evidence that Zulfiqar A.I and Ghulam Safdar were injured by the accused during the incident. They were medically examined by Dr. Fazal Hussain P.W.1 and Dr. Abdul Aziz P.W.2. The injured P.Ws. Do implicate the accused to be the same persons who while armed caused injuries to them during the incident. It is, therefore, established that the complainant and the witnesses were beaten by the accused with their weapons. In such a situation, the witnesses were able to see the accused and as such could identify the culprits. It was a daylight occurrence and as such, it was easy for the witnesses to identify the assailants. There is, therefore, no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the accused came duly armed with deadly weapons and thereafter committed the heinous offences by using their weapons. It may be seen that the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence counsel but no suggestion in respect of the enmity or is-will ---vas given to the prosecution witnesses during that exercise. In other words, there is no animosity between the prosecution witnesses and the accused.
The prosecution evidence inspires confidence. Apart from the above, A the looted money was recovered from the accused in presence of competent witnesses. Qazi Manzoor Ahmad complainant P.W.3 reiterated his earlier statement thereby giving full support to the plea of prosecution. Ghulam Safdar (P.W.4) was also an employee of the Irrigation Department and was driving Suzuki Van on the day of occurrence. He supported the evidence of P.W.3. Riasat A.I (P.W.5) stated that on 3-10-1991 he alongwith other prosecution witnesses was going towards Nandipur Research Institute. They had with them Rs.3,13,190 for its disbursement as salary to the Staff of Research Institute. He fully corroborated the complainant. Khuda Dad, A.S.I. P.W.6 stated that he was present with the S.H.O. On the fateful day at Pull Ferozewala when an information was received that Attiq-ur-Rehman was present on a Tea-stall near the over-head bridge of Gujranwala City. A raid was conducted and a pistol Exh.P29 was recovered from him. He also led the police party to the recovery of a sum of Rs.35,275 from an almirah of his house. On the same day, the accused, Tariq Ramey got recovered an amount of Rs.84,700 from his house which he had kept under a sewing machine. Similarly, an accused, Waheed Habib Ullah got recovered an amount of Rs.34,200 from his house. Muhammad Pervaiz Butt, Manager, UBL (P.W.8) deposed that Attiq-ur-Rehman deposited Rs.70,000 in his Bank by opening PLS A/c No.1402, on 8-10-1991. He stated that on 5-12- 1991 the said accused again came in the Bank in the police custody and withdrew the aforesaid amount from his account. Zulfiqar A.I P.W.11 moved an application Exh.P.W.9/A before the ADC(G) on 5-11-f991 for holding identification parade. The ADC(G) accepted. The application and directed the Magistrate to conduct the identification parade. On 6-11-1991, the identification parade was held in which the prosecution witnesses turn by turn, identified Attiq-ur--Rehman, Tariq Ramey and Waheed Habib Ullah in Central Jail, Gujranwala from amongst various people who were present there. The accused, WaheedHabib Ullah led to police party to UBL, Rail Bazar , Kharadan and got recovered Rs.70,000 vide memo. Exh.PG. In all Rs.2,99,175 the looted money was recovered from the three accused. In such a situation, it was for the accused to prove from where they got this huge money in such a short period. We are, therefore, inclined to believe that the looted money was deposited by the accused in their Bank accounts for keeping it in safe custody. We accordingly, hold that the appellants have committed this heinous offence of robbery by looting the Government money from the complainant when he was going to distribute it as salary amongst the members of Staff of Research Institute, Nandipur. This being so, the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. There is, therefore, no substance in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.