' This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision No,552 of 2002 (filed by petitioners Hammad son of Ghulam Haider aged 22 years, Khurram Masood son of Masood Sarwar aged 20 years and Waheed Rashid son of Abdul Rashid aged 25 years). Criminal Revision No,551 of 2002 (filed by Hammad) and Criminal Revision No,550 of 2002, (filed by Khurram Masood) as they have nexus.
2. Criminal Revision No,552 of 2002 is directed against the judgment dated 17-5-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide which petitioners' appeal against the judgment dated 18-3-2002 passed by the learned trial Court convicting the petitioners under section 392, P.P.C. And sentencing them to three years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs,10,000 each in default whereof to undergo further S.I. For one month, was dismissed. Criminal Revisions Nos.550 of 2002 and 551 of 2002 are directed against the judgments both' dated 17-5-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide which he dismissed the appeals of the petitioners against the judgments of the learned trial Court both dated 18-3-2002 in terms of which both the petitioners were convicted under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 and sentenced to one year's R.I. Each with a fine of Rs,1,000 in default whereof to further undergo S.I. For one month after extending benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Each.
3. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 (F.I.R. No,559, dated 28-5-1998 under section 392, P.P.C., Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala) briefly stated is that On 28-5-1998 complainant left his house at about 9-45 a.m. For the office of the Director, Pakistan Telecom, Gujranwala to inform him about the death of his son-in-law who was a Divisional Engineer. When he came back at about 12 mid-day he saw that the outer gate of his house was open and his daughter Nighat Jabeen was running towards the main gate raising hue and cry about the dacoits having robbed the inmates. It was alleged that three accused (petitioners) had taken away gold ornaments, a Rado Watch and a cash of 1,500 Riyals from the purse of Mah Jabeen, the other daughter of the complainant. It was further alleged that on a chase made by the complainant accompanied by his driver, the accused were apprehended at a distance of one furlong from the house, the complainant snatched dagger from Khurram Masood accused and Abdul Qayyum Driver caught Hammad accused and a pistol was recovered from him.
4. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses. Ehsan Elahi (complainant) appeared. As P.W.1. Nighat Jabeen as P.W.2 and Mah Jabeen as P.W.3, P.W.4 is Abdul Qayyum who is a recovery witness of Exhs.P.1 to P.11 (Riyals). Muhammad Siddique, A.S.-I. Arrested Hammad petitioner after getting him discharged from the hospital. Abdul Qayyum and Sharif who were cited in the calendar of witnesses were, however, given up by the prosecution.
5. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution story. Hammad petitioner, however, took up a specific plea which reads as under:-- "The complainant's daughter had invited me to her house but later on her family members threw me to ground and involved me in this case."
6. The remaining accused/petitioners, however, took up the plea that they had been involved on account of their intimacy and friendship with Hammad petitioner/accused.
7. The prosecution story in Criminal Revision No,550 of 2002 is that on 29-5-1998 they were on patrol duty within the area of Jalil Town when they received a spy information about the presence of Khurram Masood (who is an accused in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,559, dated 28-5-1998 under section 392, P.P.C. Police. Station Saddar, Gujranwala), a raid was conducted and he was arrested and a dagger was also recovered from him.
8. During trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, Munir Alimad P.W.1, Aqeel Ahmad P.W.2, Muhammad Riaz P.W.3 and Sahib Dad P.W.4.
9. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner/ accused denied the prosecution story and appeared as his own witness as D.W.1, produced Raja Muhammad Majid D.W.2 and Tahir Mehmood D.W.3 who deposed about the innocence of the petitioner Khurram Masood.
10. In Criminal Revision No,551 of 2002 the prosecution story is that on 29-5-1998 Sahibdad, S.-I. Was on patrol duty when he received a spy information about the presence of petitioner (accused of F.I.R. No,559, dated 28-5-1998 under section 392, P.P.C.), a raid was conducted, he was apprehended and a pistol .30 bore was recovered from
11. During trial four witnesses appeared for the prosecution which are the prosecution witnesses in the other case i,e, Criminal Revision No,550 of 2002. The accused/petitioner when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, right at the outset, submitted that he would not challenge the impugned judgments on merits in all the afore-referred petitions provided the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
13. The learned Law Officer has no objection to the afore-referred prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
14. Heard.
15. The case of the prosecution, in the main case, i,e, F.I.R. No,559 of 1998, dated 28-5-1998 under section 392, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala is that the three accused (petitioners) entered into complainant's house and robbed the inmates of the articles mentioned in the F.I.R., a chase was made in consequence of which Khurram Masood and Hammad petitioners were apprehended. However, the third accused ran away. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. That a dagger was recovered from Khurram Masood and pistol was recovered from Hammad petitioner- accused. The eye-witnesses of the main occurrence, namely. Nighat Jabeen (P.W.2) and Mah Jabeen (P.W.3) have made statements consistent with the F.I.R. No material inconsistency between their statements before the police and in Court has been, pointed out. There is no reason why they would falsely implicate the petitioners. Their statements have been corroborated by the factum of recovery and they were found guilty during investigation as well. In the afore-referred circumstances the prosecution case stands fully proved. No wonder the petitioners' learned counsel has not challenged their convictions. Criminal Revision No,552 of 2002 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, coming to Criminal Revision No,551 of 2002, I note that both these petitioners were (as per prosecution case in Criminal Revision No,552 of 2002) arrested at the spot (in case F.I.R. No,559, dated 28-5-1998, under section 392, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala).
However, there was no occasion for the police to receive a spy information on a subsequent day i,e, on 29-5-1998 raiding the premises, arresting them and recovering weapons in question i,e, dagger from Khurram Masood and pistol from Hammad. No public witness appeared to support the prosecution case. The prosecution case in both these petitions is not free from doubt. Resultantly, Criminal Revision No,550 of 2002 (filed by Khurram Masood) and Criminal Revision No,551 of 2002 (filed by Hammad) are allowed, the impugned judgments of conviction in both these petitions i,e, judgments dated 18-3-2002 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30 and judgments dated 17- 5-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965). Acquittal ordered.