' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1616 of 2001 filed by Muhammad Asif, convict appellant who was convicted under section 459, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo R.I. For five years with a fine of Rs.3,000 in default three months' S.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki vide judgment dated 12-10-2001.
' Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2001 filed by the complainant against acquittal of the accused from the charges other than 459, P.P.C., as also Criminal Revision No.194 of 2002 shall be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that 10-10-1996 at about 11-30 p.m. Four unknown persons trespassed into house of the complainant, snatched golden ornaments of wife of the complainant, on hue and cry all family members woke up, grappled with the accused, Muhammad Din accused fired which hit on the head of the complainant, the complainant in order to save himself gave two hatchet blows on the person of Muhammad Din who fell down, daughter of the complainant went on the roof, raised hue and cry which attracted many people, Asif accused also received injuries during the occurrence and was apprehended at the spot. In the scuffle, wife, sons and father of the complainant also received injuries. The complainant was also injured. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That Muhammad Din received injuries at the hands of the people gathered at the spot from the vicinity.
3. Investigation of the case was conducted by Jaffar Ali, A.S.-I. (P.W.14). He after recording statement of the complainant went to the place of occurrence, found a dead body lying in the Haveli of Haji Noor Muhammad, prepared inquest report Exh.P.I., got arrested Muhammad Asif, accused as also Shamim Bibi, Noor Muhammad, Akhtar, Javed Iqbal and Muhammad Iqbal were medically examined, prepared injury statements of the injured, prepared rough site plan and on 28-10-1996 arrested Muhammad Asif accused. The accused while in custody led to the recovery of rifle 222 but there is no mention of the memo. Through which the same was taken into possession.
After completion of the investigation, four accused namely Ghayas-ud-Din, Zakir Hussain, Muhammad Asif and Hameed-udDin were challaned to face the trial.
4. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 14 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded false implication. After conclusion of the trial, except Muhammad Asif, all the remaining three accused were acquitted.
5. Learned counsel for convict appellant submits that in the complaint, the complainant mentioned four accused while appearing before the trial Court, he by making dishonest improvements, named six persons as accused. According to learned counsel, out of four accused, three accused were closely related to the complainant but their names were not mentioned and had the complainant been present at the spot, he should have mentioned their names. Further submits that complainant made two supplementary statements, one on the next day of occurrence and second three months after the occurrence. Adds that injuries on the persons of the injured P. Ws.
Are with blunt weapon and simple in nature and that nothing was recovered either from Muhammad Din deceased or Muhammad Asif, convict appellant. Further adds that in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer, no specific places of accused, injured and the P. Ws. Have been shown. Learned counsel lastly submits that on the same set of evidence, three co-accused of the appellant have been acquitted.
' Learned counsel who was appointed as defence counsel at State expense because counsel for the convict appellant was not appearing for the last so many dates, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence, which the appellant has already undergone be treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that place of occurrence is not denied, Muhammad Asif convict was apprehended at the spot, the defence plea of the appellant is totally absurd, five persons from the side of the complainant were injured having injuries on vital parts and that there was no reason on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have, gone through the record. Both the parties told lie before the Investigating Officer as also before the learned trial Court. Muhammad Asif, convict appellant was empty-handed. He was found injured in the house of the complainant party.
The complainant had made dishonest improvements before the trial Court inasmuch as changed number of the accused, that's from four to 6. The complainant made two supplementary statements after recording of the F.I.R., first one was made next day after the occurrence and second three months after the occurrence. No identification parade was held in this case. In the supplementary statements, the complainant had named his uncle and nephew as accused. Had the complainant been present at the spot at the time of occurrence, he must have mentioned the names of his uncle and nephew. Previous enmity existed between the parties. A certified copy of the order of stay passed by the learned Civil Judge in a suit inter se between the parties and judgment of this Court in a civil revision was placed on record by the defence. I am thus, of the considered opinion that no offence under section 459. P.P.C. Is made out and the offence, if any, is made out, that's under section 457, P.P.C., hence the period which the appellant has remained in jail is treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Criminal appeal filed by the convict appellant is disposed of with reduction in sentence. Criminal Revision No.194 of 2002 filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence is dismissed.
' Ghayas-ud-Din, Zakir Hussain and Hameed-ud-Din, respondents in appeal against acquittal being very closely related to the complainant and their names having been mentioned in the supplementary statement and in the complaint made basis of the F.I.R., no credence can be given to statement of such a complainant. The reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal of the respondents are cogent and borne out from the evidence on record. Criminal Appeal No.329 is thus, dismissed.