1. ' Appellant Arif Masih and co-accused Farooq Masih were tried and convicted for the offence under sections 394/34 and 398, P.P.C. By the learned Sessions Judge Karachi (South). They were awarded sentence of seven years R.I. With fine of Rs,20,000 each. In default of payment of fine to suffer R.I.
2. Three months further.
3. ' Prosecution case as appears from the record, is that on 15-11-2001, two bandits one equipped with pistol and the other with dagger entered the office situated at Azaks Cosmopolitan, Room No,72, 3rd Floor, Dilkusha Chambers, Martine Road, Garden, Karachi. They at the pistol point, snatched Rs,5,500 from Muhammad Mairaj, Supervisor, Zahid Yameen, Clerk, Zeeshan Saeed Khan and Peon Abdul Ghaffar. When they were leaving the office, peon Abdul Ghaffar attempted to catch hold one of them but he was given dagger blow by the culprit. Thereafter the victims shouted which attracted the mobile po'ice party. A.S.-I. Nisar Shah and A.S.-I. Turab Ali who were mobile on a motorcycle captured the culprits despite resistance. In the scuffle both of the A.S.-Is. And the appellant were injured. The culprits introduced themselves as Farooq Masih and Arif Masih. A .30 bore pistol, magazine containing three live bullets and cash of Rs,5,500 were recovered from Farooq Masih whereas dagger was recovered from Arif Masih. The culprits and the articles were then taken to police station where the case was lodged by Muhammad Meraj, Supervisor of the office.
4. ' The injured were referred to Doctor for examination and treatment and the process of investigation started. On conclusion of the investigation, both of the culprits were sent for trial. In the result of trial both of them were convicted as mentioned above by judgment dated 19-6-2002.
5. The conviction and sentence have been appealed against by Arif Masih.
6. ' None is present for the appellant. After calling the matter twice the arguments of learned State Counsel have been heard. With his assistance, the entire evidence has been reappraised.
7. ' Learned State Counsel contended that in the present case where the incident happened at day time and the culprits were captured red-handed, all the P.Ws. Have implicated them and nothing "such was got" from them in the cross-examination which could render their evidence doubtful. All the witnesses are independent having no ill-will against the convicts and also their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. Thus the appellant has rightly been sentenced by the learned trial Court.
8. ' Complainant Muhammad Meria I and P.Ws. Zahid Yameen, Abdul Ghaffar and Zeeshan have fully implicated the appellant saying that on 15-11-2001 at 3-45 p.m. When they were present in their office, two bandits equipped with pistol and dagger entered therein and forcibly snatched cash from each of them. In all they were deprived of Rs,5,500. They further deposed that Abdul Ghaffar peon attempted to catch hold one of the culprits but his attempt was failed due to dagger injury inflicted by the culprit. They, however, raised commotions in the result whereof police party managed to capture the culprits. Pistol and dagger were recovered from them besides snatched cash Rs,5,500. They further deposed that the captives disclosed their names as Farooq Masih and Arif Masih. Out of them the former had pistol and the latter was carrying dagger.
9. ' The witnesses were cross-examined and suggestions put to them that no incident of robbery had taken place and they have falsely implicated the accused/appellant which suggestions were denied without any reservation. Nothing such could be extracted from the witnesses in the cross- examination, which could give rise to a slightest doubt about their evidence. They all are natural witnesses having no against the appellants. Therefore, in the circumstances there is no justification to doubt them. The evidence of above four witnesses gets support from the evidence of both A.S.- Is., who captured the culprits after receiving the injuries at their hands. They have fully supported the evidence of above four witnesses saying that on 15-11-2001 at about 4-00 p.m. While passing near Martine Road on a motorcycle they found two culprits equipped with T.T. Pistol and dagger running and 4/5 persons following them raising shouts "Pakro, Pakro". They then apprehended the culprits after receiving injuries at their hands. They further deposed that the culprit with pistol disclosed his name as Farooq Masih whereas the other culprit carrying dagger introduced himself as Arif Masih. According to them, they recovered the respective weapons from the culprits besides robbed money. In cross-examinations it was suggested to them that there was a quarrel between them and the appellants when they were standing in the queue at Nasheman Cinema for purchasing tickets. The suggestion was denied and also no material whatsoever was brought on record to substantiate the suggestion.
10. ' Their evidence is confirmed materially by the two Doctors. The evidence of Dr. Rohina Hassan who examined Arif Masih proves presence of tenderness on his person and the evidence of Dr. Imran Sarwar establishes the presence of injuries on the person of A.S.-Is., Nisar Shah and Turab Ali and one injury on the person of Abdul Ghaffar P.W. Thus it confirms the evidence about the scuffle between the P.Ws. And culprits.
11. ' Although the appellants and his co-accused did examine themselves under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
12. And deposed that on the day of incident they were standing in the queue at the Nasheman Cinema for purchasing the tickets and were taken from there by A.S.-I. Turab Ali and others to Garden Police Station and they involved them in the present case falsely but that plea does not get any support from the circumstances. It clearly appears to be a made up story, which cannot be, attached any weight against the huge evidence on prosecution side. They have even not given plausible explanation of the injuries on his person. Thus the massive evidence on prosecution side proves the charge against the appellant.
13. 'In view of above, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellants. The judgment does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.