' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,785 of 1997 filed by Mushtaq Ahmad and Shahzad Masih, appellants, who were convicted and sentenced by Judge, Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 vide judgment, dated 28-11-1997 as under:-- ' 10 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000, in default two years' R.I. Under section 457, P.P.C.
' 10 years' R.I. With the further direction to pay fine of Rs,20,000, in default 2 years' R.I. Under section 392, P.P.C. And ' Two years' R.I. Under section 411, P.P.C.
' All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No,763 of 1997 filed by the State against acquittal under section 10(4), Hudood Ordinance (1979) of the convicts shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed by Abdul Sattar complainant are that on 2/3-9-1997 at about 3-00 a.m. He alongwith his wife and children were sleeping in their house in Mohallah Shahabpura Daska City. Two unknown persons entered in the courtyard one was armed with a gun while the other with a Chhuri. They both robbed the couple of two ear-rings, one ring. 'three wrist watches, three lady suits Rs,100 cash, 35 kilo of rice and some household utensils and while leaving their house threatened them not to report the matter at the police station. In the morning Abdul Sattar came to know that a similar robbery had been committed in the house of his neighbour Muhammad Anwar from where the accused had also taken away the valuable and household articles.
3. Investigation of the case was taken over by Muhammad Amin, Inspector (P.W.15). He visited the spot, prepared rough site plan Exh.P.T. Arrested both the accused on 7-9-1997 and sent them to judicial lock-up on the following day. On 10-9-1997 the identification parade was held in Sialkot Jail.
On 13-9-1997 he obtained the personal remand of the accused and Mushtaq Ahmad accused while in custody led to the recovery of stolen articles such ear-ring P.1/1-2, one ring P.2, three wrist watches P.3/1-3, pressure cooker P.6, rice P.5, Dajika P.7, Thali P.8, Chabbas P.9/1-3, sceneries P.10/1-2 which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.O. Alongwith other articles. On 14-9-1997 Shahbaz Masih also got recovered three lady suits P.4/1-3 which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.M. The recovered articles were, identified by Abdul Sattar, the complainant and his wife Mst. Khalida Parveen in the police station. On 17-9-1997 Mushtaq Ahmad accused got recovered rifle 7 mm P.11 alongwith four live bullets P.12/1-4 which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.N. The investigation was also verified by Muhammad Munir, D.S.P. (P.W.14). After completion of the investigation, both the accused were challaned to face the trial.
4. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 15 witnesses in all, thereafter, the learned S.P.P. Tendered in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.B. And closed the prosecution case, then the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded innocence. After conclusion of the trial, both the accused were convicted and sentenced as stated above by the learned Trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants after having read the entire prosecution evidence and other relevant material available on record submits that appellants were not named in the F.I.R. That they have been falsely implicated, that identification parade was not held according to the High Court Rules and Orders, that appellants were shown to the eyewitnesses before the identification parade so it has lost its value, that recovery of golden ornaments and other articles belonging to the complainant as his household articles but no detail was given in this regard, that complainant stated in his statement that he had identified the articles while Mst. Khalida his wife stated that she had identified the looted articles, that recovery of rifle has been planted on Mushtaq appellant, that no independent witness of recovery was produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court, that there are material contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses, that no case is made out 'against the appellants, that in fact they have been made scapegoat in the instant case due to political rivalry and they are entitled to acquittal.
6. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, that it was a heinous offence committed by the appellants. They both support the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very minutely with their able assistance. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place in between the night of 2/3-9-1997 in the house of Abdul Sattar complainant situated in Mohallah Shahabpura Daska City. According to the F.I.R. Which is Exh.P.J. On the record, two accused persons whose descriptions were given in the F.I.R. Criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and while threatening the complainant and his wife on gun-point and knife snatched two golden ear- rings, one ring, three wrist watches, three lady suits Rs,100 cash, 35 kilos of rice and the household articles like wall clock, ceiling fan and T.V. Etc. Both Abdul Sattar complainant and his wife Mst.
Khalida Parveen after the arrest of the appellants identified them in identification parade which was held in jail by Nadeem Sarwar, Magistrate P.W.3. Both of them had also identified the appellants before the learned trial Court.
8. It may be very important to note here, that Mst. Khalida Parveen subsequently, also levelled allegation of Zina against both the appellants, as the same fact was not mentioned in the F.I.R. The learned trial Court while granting benefit of doubt acquitted them from the charge of Zina.
Recovery of golden ornaments and household articles were also effected from the appellants, those were duly verified by Mst. Khalida Parveen and Abdul Sattar complainant. As far as, contention of learned counsel for the appellants that identification parade was not held according to High Court Rules and Orders is concerned that's incorrect for the reasons mentioned above.
Moreover, the ()the' contention of learned counsel that appellants were shown to the eye- witnesses before the identification parade is not manifest from the judicial record or from the proceedings of identification parade. Ocular account is fully corroborated by the recovery effected from the appellants, there was no previous background of enmity between the parties, there was no question of false implication of the appellants. The contention of the appellants before the trial Court that they have been made scapegoat has no leg to stand. There is not an iota of evidence on the record which shows that eye-witnesses have deposed falsely against the appellants.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I am fully convinced that prosecution has proved its case against the, appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. There is also no mitigating circumstance in this case. Such-like offences are on its peak for the last so many years, the same should be curbed with iron hands. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants by the learned trial Court is maintained. However, the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is granted to the appellants.
'Criminal Appeal No,763 of 1997 filed by the State against acquittal under section 10(4)/79, Hudood Ordinance of the convicts-appellants is dismissed. accordingly.