' This appeal jointly filed by Saeed-ur-Rehman alias Sheedoo son of Abdul Rehman resident of Mohallah Shahbaz Garh Hazro and Muhammad Fiaz son of Muhammad Amin resident of Dhoke Rahmoon Police Station Hazro, District Attock, is directed against the judgment, dated 10-7-1996 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Attock, whereby he has convicted them under sections 380/457 and 411, P.P.C. And sentenced them as mentioned hereinunder:-- Under section 380, P.P.C.Four years' R.I. each and a fine ofRs.5,000 each or in default of payment of fine further two months' S. I. each.
Under section 457, P.P.CSix years' R.I., each and a fine of Rs.10,000-each or in default of payment of fine further three months' S.I. each; and Under Section 411, P.P.C.One year's R.I. each and a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default of payment of fine further one month's S.I. each.
' All the aforementioned sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended to them. It has been directed that the punishment would be treated as Tazii under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The case of prosecution as narrated in Exh.P.A. Recorded on the statement of Talat Mahmood on 21-5-1993 is to the effect that an amount of Rs,1,200 and one radio transistor National Panasonic three band made in Japan were stolen during the preceding night from his shop which he had locked at the close of the day. The contents of Exh.P.A. Are reproduced hereinunder:-{{URDU TEXT}}
3. At the trial the prosecution examined P.W.1 Talat Mahmood complainant, P.W.2 Nisar Khan, brother of complainant, P.W.3 Shafqat H.C., marginal witnesses of recovery memos. Exh.P.C.
Whereby the said radio transister was recovered from the possession of appellant Saeed-ur- Rehman who was found in suspicious condition on 21-5-1993 at Tarbela Morr with a plastic envelope containing the said transistor in his hand. P.W.4 is Muhammad Akbar Inspector. He recorded the statement Exh.P.A. And got the same incorpoiated into F.I.R. He investigated the case and challaned the appellants/accused to face the trial.
4. Both the appellants made statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they denied the allegations and pleaded innocent. However, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. At the outset the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that as far as aforesaid appellant Saeed-ur-Rehman is concerned he does not press his appeal to his extent but only requests for reduction in his sentences under section 411, P.P.C. And setting aside conviction under sections 380 and 457, P.P.C. As they are not maintainable. As far as Muhammad Fiaz appellant/accused is concerned he submitted that there is no cogent piece of evidence on record to establish his guilt beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. The learned counsel for the State conceded to both the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused.
6. I have minutely gone through the entire record and have found that neither anyone of the accused has made any confession nor there is any ,other ocular evidence against them. According to the F.I.R. The occurrence took place during the night and contents of Exh.P.A. Reveal that this was an unseen occurrence. Therefore, as far as the appellant/accused Saeed-ur-Rehman is concerned recovery of transistor from his possession at Tarbala Morr connects him with the commission of offence under the provisions of section 411, P.P.C. But as far as Muhammad Fiaz appellant/accused is concerned there is not an iota of any evidence against him. The currency notes recovered from his possession do not connect him with the commission of the offence as the stolen currency notes, according to the admissions of P. Ws. Were not marked. Therefore, extending the benefit of doubt to him I set aside his conviction and sentences and acquit him of the charges. Regarding appellant/accused Saeed-ur-Rehman, however, it may be mentioned that in the light of evidence brought on record by the prosecution he is only guilty under section 411, P.P.C. Since he has undergone considerable period in detention I reduce the sentence of his imprisonment under section 411, P.P.C. To already undergone. The sentence of fine is also set aside. I acquit him from the charges under section 380, P.P.C. And section 457, P.P.C. And set aside his conviction and sentences thereunder.
7. Consequently for the reasons stated above, I set aside conviction andar sentences of the appellant Muhammad Fiaz and acquit him of the charge. He is c present on bail and his bail bonds are discharged. I set aside conviction and sentences of the appellant/accused Saeed-ur-Rehman under section 380, P.P.C. And section 457, P.P.C. And acquit him of the charge thereunder. However, I maintain his conviction under section 411, P.P.C. And while setting aside the sentence of fine awarded to him thereunder I reduce the sentence of his imprisonment to already undergone. He is present on bail and his bail bonds are discharged.
8. With the aforementioned modification in the conviction and sentences, the appeal of appellant/accused Saeed-ur-Rehman is partially allowed and appeal of Muhammad Fiaz is accepted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.