JUDGMENT JUDGMENT RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Ali sons of Shera. Were tried by Special Court No. 5, Faisalabad, who vide its judgment dated 3- 7-1994, convicted and sentenced them under sections 436 and 427 PPC to 3 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs. 5000/-, or in default further R.I. for3 months.
Convicts have appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. Prosecution story in brief as disclosed in FIR Exh. PA, get registered by Saiful|ah PW was to the effect that he had made a Marveling for his cattle which was separated from his residential house.
He was going to demolish his house for build it again therefore all the household effects were shifted to the have of cattle. On the night of 11/12-5M993, the fist informant with his brother Muhammad Hayat and one Muhammad Ali' were going towards have. In the light of lantern they saw Muhammad Hayat carrying a Jerrican of Kerosine oil. He opened the door and sprinckled the oil on his household effects. Muhammad Ali co-accused set the same on fire. Thereafter they ran away. The first informant and others identified in the light of lantern. The commotion attracted many people and the fire was put of.
3. The occurrence in this case had taken place on the night of 11/12-5-1993. In i.e the have of the first informant situated at Chak No. 150/R.B., Maduana, Police Station Khurrianwala. FIR Exh. PA was get registered on 14-5-1993, at 4-30 p. Nv. By Saifullah at Police Station Khurrianwala, seven miles from the spot.
4. The police investigated the case and found both the accused innocent. They prepared report for cancellation of the case but the learned Special Court decided to proceed against them therefore the present appeal.
5. Prosecution in order to establish its case produced 4 witnesses in all. Atta Muhammad, MMC..PW- 1, on 14-5-1993, at 4-30 p.m. Recorded FIR on the statement of Saifullah PW. The ocular account was furnished by Saifullah and Muhammad Ali. P.Ws. 2 and 3, respectively. The case was partly investigated by Jeven Khan, AS1, PW-4.
6. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence both the appellants were examined on oath and pleaded innocence. They refuted the prosecution allegations ?Md pleaded innocence. They also produced one Muhammad Hayat as DW, who stated that he had given Nian with regard to the innocence of both the appellants.
7. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that unexplained delay of two days in the registration of case make it highly doubtful. Submitted that ingredients of section 436 PPC have not been established therefore the conviction is bad in law. Contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
8. , We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The occurrence had taken place between the sight of 11/12-5-1993, yet the case was got registered on 14-5-1993. There is no explanation available why the case was got registered with such a delay. The police during investigation did not take any burnt articles into possession nor the Jerrican in which keorisene oil was being carried was taken into possession. In the absence of any articles being taken into possession it clearly indicates that the prosecution story is nothing but a concoction. The ocular account furnished by P.Ws. 2 and 3, Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Ali, respectively, does not inspire confidence. If they were present at the spot why they did not prohibit the appellants, who admittedly were not armed. It was admitted by Saifullah that he had litigation, and in view of that chances of false involvement cannot be ruled out.
9. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the involvement of the appellants is not free from doubt. Therefore while extending the benefit of doubt we accept the appeal and set aside their convictions and direct that they be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Appeal is disposed of.