2003 P Cr (PLP)

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, CT.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 Ahmad 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 him.

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.1-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, 1 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 Le 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. H.B.T./H-137/L Order accordingly: