ASIF SAEED KHAN, KHOSA, J.---Khalil Yousaf, Muhammad Ashraf alias Punnu and Nazir Ahmed appellants were convicted for an offence under section 392/34, P.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 18-11- 1993 rendered by the learned Judge, Special Court for Speedy Trials No. II, Lahore and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years each and a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The appellants were also ordered by the learned trial Court to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 to Mst. Zubaida Begum complainant and Mst. Surayya Naseem P.W. By way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The amount thus recovered was ordered to be distributed equally amongst the said ladies. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellants. Through the same judgment the learned trial Court had acquitted the appellants co-accused namely Muhammad Javed. The appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences through Criminal Appeal No.627 of 1994 whereas the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.120/SAC/L of 1993 seeking setting aside of the acquittal of Muhammad Javed accused. We have heard both these appeals together and we proposed to decide both of them together through the present consolidated judgment.
2. At the outset the learned counsel for the convicts-appellants have pointed out that all the appellants have already served out their sentences passed by the learned trial Court and they have already been released from the jail. It has further been maintained by the learned counsel .For the appellants that Muhammad Ashraf alias Punnu and Nazir Ahmad appellants do not wish to prosecute their appeal as the same has become infructuous whereas Khalil Yousaf appellant prays for a decision on the merits of his appeal as he was an employee of the Government at the relevant time and his continuance in such service is at stake. The learned counsel for the State has also pressed the State's appeal against the acquittal of Muhammad Javed accused.
3. According to the prosecution's case unfolded in the F.I.R. Mst. Zubaida Begum complainant was a Headmistress of a girls' school and at 9-00 a.m. On 7-1-1993 she alongwith another 'teacher of her school namely Mst. Surayya Begum P.W. And five of their students were robbed of some cash and jewellery in the area of Chak No. 13/I-AL within the area of Police Station Sadar Renala Khurd, District Okara by four persons and all the three convicts-appellants were identified at the spot as the robbers. F.I.R. No.6 was lodged by Mst. Zubaida Begum complainant in respect of that incident on the same day at 10-15 a.m. At Police Station Saddar Renala Khurd, District Okara for an offence under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 34, P.P.C. During the investigation the appellants and their co---accused were arrested in connection with this case and some recoveries were effected from them. After completion of investigation a Challan was submitted before the learned Trial Court which framed a charge in that regard against the appellants and their co---accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. During the trial the prosecution produced seven witnesses in support of its case against the appellants and their co-accused. Mst. Zubaida Begum complainant (P.W.1) and Mst. Surayya Naseem (P.W.2) furnished the ocular account of the incident in question. Asghar Hussain (P.W.4) deposed about seeing the appellants and their co-accused approaching the place of occurrence and then also seeing them at the spot where-after they were chased by this witness. This witness had also deposed about the recoveries effected from the accused persons in this case. Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.6) had stated about giving two motorcycles to the appellants and their co---accused on hire which were used by them during the alleged incident. Nasir Ahmad, Inspector (P.W.7) stated about the various steps taken by him during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence produced by the prosecution was more or less of formal nature.
In their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants and their co-accused denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against them by prosecution and professed their innocence. They had maintained that they had been falsely implicated in this case on account of party faction and political rivalry in the locality. They however, did not, make any statement on oath under section 342(2), Cr.P.C. But they produced one witness in their defence. At the conclusion of the trial the learned, trial Court acquitted Muhammad Javed accused but, after finding the prosecution's case against the appellants to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeals before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.627 of 1994 has argued that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Khalil Yousaf appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, he was entitled to be acquitted. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the said appellant to the hilt. The learned Assistant Advocate---General has maintained that even Muhammad Javed accused was liable to be convicted and sentenced as the prosecution's case against him stood amply proved.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have noticed that Mst. Zubaida Begum complainant (P.W.1) and Mst. Surayya Naseem (P.W.2) were the Headmistress and a teacher of a girls' school respectively and they had absolutely no animus or ill- will against Khalil Yousaf appellant so as to falsely implicate him in a case of this nature. Both the said eye-witnesses had made consistent statements before the learned trial Court and their statements have inspired our confidence. Both of them had not only identified Khalil Yousaf appellant before the police but had also identified him before the learned trial Court without any mistake. Asghar Hussain (P.W.4) knew Khalil Yousaf appellant quite well and he had not only seen the said appellant coming with his companions to the place of occurrence but had also seen him at the spot at the time of the occurrence. He had also chased this appellant and his companions when they were running away from the spot after the occurrence. The, defence had failed to bring anything on the record so as to discredit this witness. The ornaments recovered from this appellant's possession during the investigation of this case had been identified by Mst. Zubaida Begum complainant (P.W.1) before the learned trial Court to be her. Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.6) had deposed about giving two motorcycles on hire to this appellant and his co-accused which motorcycles had been used by them for committing the offence in this case. All these witnesses had made consistent as well categorical statements fully incriminating Khalil Yousaf appellant and we have found no reason to doubt the veracity of these witnesses. The plea of false implication on account of political rivalry and party faction in the locality taken by this appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And supported by the statement of Mubarik Ali (D.W.1) has been found by us to be vague, unspecific and utterly unreliable. The defence had completely failed to establish as to why the Headmistress and a teacher of the local girls' school would become a party to the local political rivalry or party faction and would falsely implicate an innocent person in a case of this nature.
6. For what has been discussed above we have arrived at a confident conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing the guilt of Khalil Yousaf appellant home and, therefore, Criminal Appeal No.627 of 1994 is dismissed to his extent on the merits of the case whereas the same appeal is dismissed to the extent of Muhammad Ashraf alias Punnu and Nazir Ahmad appellants as having become infructuous and not pressed.
7. Muhammad Javed accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. One of the perpetrators of the alleged offence and the reasons advanced by the learned trial Court for recording his acquittal have not been found by us to be either perverse or arbitrary.
The conclusions arrived at by the learned Court in his regard were such that any reasonable Court could have arrived at the same upon a fair assessment of the evidence available on the record. In these circumstances we have found no occasion to interfere with the acquittal of the said accused person recorded by the learned trial Court more than nine years ago and, therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 120/SAC/L of 1993 filed by the State is hereby dismissed.