1995 PLP 830 (SCMR)

WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J:

Abdul Jahhaf, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 13‑4-1993 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby Criminal Appeals No: 10 of 1992 and 11 of 1992, filed by him and his co=accused Amjad Ali Against the judgment dated 12-4-1992 passed by Mr, Fakhar-ud-Din Siddiqui, Judge Special Court (or Suppression of Terrorist Activities (constituted under the Special Court Act of 1975), Bahawalpur Division, convicting them tinder section 392/411, P.P.C., and sentencing chum to ten years' R.I. each and it fine of Rs, two lac each or in default further three years' R.1 in case F.I.R No. 197/91 dated 13-7-1991, police Station Rot Samaba, District Rahimyar Khan, was dismissed with the modification in sentence by reducing imprisonment from ten years' R.I, to seven years' R.I. each and reduction in fine from Rs. two lac each to Rs.10,000 each or in default six months' R.I. each, extending them the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr. P.C. Amjad Ali, co‑accused of the petitioners, has also challenged his conviction and sentence through Jail Petition No. 105 of 1993 which is also being disposed of through this common judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Munir Khan, Advocate, for the petitioners, and have perused the record of the case.

3. No doubt, the occurrence took place at the dead of night and the assailants had muffled their faces. However, the robbery having taken place in National Petrol Pump in Chak No. 78‑P where Mukhtar Ahmed P.W.1, Abdul Hakeem P.W.2 and Muhammad Aslam P.W.3 were present and had the occasion to see the assailants from close reached in electric light of the prompt lodged F.I.R., the details of the dacoity, the respective weapons in the possession of the assailants, and their description alongwith colour of clothes worn by them were fully narrated. An amount of Rs.9,568 alongwith a driving licence of Habibullah and a Seiko watch were taken away by the assailants. Dilawar Hussain P.W.5 saw the accused/petitioner' riding on a motor‑cycle coming from Khanpur side and going towards Rahimyar Khan at 3‑15 a.m. with Abdul Jabbar accused/petitioner having something wrapped in his hand which seemed to be some weapon. He knew the accused since prior thereto. Later on he came to know that they had committed dacoity and after the occurrence were running away on their motor‑cycle of red colour. During the course of investigation, at the instance of Amjad Ali accused/petitioner, National Identity Card of Mukhtar Ahmed P.W.1 and one Seiko wrist watch alongwith three currency notes of Rs.100 denomination were recovered from a box lying in his house. Similarly, Abdul Jabbar accused/petitioner led to the recovery of three currency notes of Rs.100 denomination, four currency notes of ROO denomination and one note of Rs.5 denomination alongwith one driving licence of Habibullah, the mention whereof had already been made in the F.I.R, from a box lying in his house. The eye-witnesses, in their statements in Court, positively stated that the petitioners were the persons who had committed dacoity on the night of occurrence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the statements of Mukhtar Ahmed, Abdul Hakeem and Muhammad Aslam cannot be made the basis for the conviction of the petitioners as they had not identified them at the time of occurrence and the subsequent charge against them in their Court statement is an afterthought under the pressure of the police. According to him, Dilawar Hussain P.W.5 was equally not reliable being a chance witness and the mere fact that he saw them riding on a red colour motor‑cycle cannot per se establish that they were the persons who had committed dacoity and were fleeing from the spot. About the recovery, he submitted that it is the weakest possible evidence and at the most they can be convicted under section 411, P.P.C. only. We are afraid, the contentions raised by the learned counsel are devoid of any substance. In such like offences, the assailants normally muffle their faces but the place of occurrence being a petrol pump having sufficient light at the time of occurrence, the statements of the witnesses in Court positively implicating the accused/petitioners can safely be relied upon, particularly when they had already mentioned the description of the assailants in the F.I.R. and respective weapons in their possession. The recovery of the very articles the details whereof mentioned in the F.I.R. from the possession of the petitioner is sufficient corroboration of their involvement in the offence.

5. There is no merit in the instant petitions and both, of them are hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑1213/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.