1991 P Cr (PLP)

Iqbal Mahmood Awan, for Appellant. Mansoor Alamgir, A.A.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 29th January, 1990. Manak appellant was tried by Magistrate Section 30, Jaranwala and vide order, dated 28-3-1981 convicted under section 411/75, P.P.C. and sentenced to five years' R.I. He has appealed.

2. Muhammad Jaffar complainant (P.W.1) a resident of Police Station Sayyedwala, District Sheikhupura reached Police Station Khurrianwala in District Faisalabad on 25-7-1980 where a buffalo alongwith a calf was already there in the cattle pond having been recovered on the same day from the house of the appellant in Chak No.227/R.B. District Faisalabad under section 550, Cr.P.C. by Ghulam Muhammad S.I. (P.W.3). On reaching the police station he informed that the buffalo and the calf belonged to him which had been stolen about 5-6 months back when he was bringing the same to Faisalabad and tied the same on the roadside and slept nearby but in the morning the same was found missing.

3. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded false involvement. He also produced Shah Muhammad and Khan Muhammad (D.Ws. 1 and 2) in defence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case was cooked up one. He has pointed out that when the buffalo and calf were stolen no report was, at all, made to the police by the complainant. He is a resident of Police Station Sayyedwala, which is sufficiently away from Police Station Khurrianwala of District Faisalabad. He pointed out that it was very strange that on the very day the buffalo was allegedly got recovered by the appellant from his house the complainant happened to drop in at the police station to identify his buffalo and on his statement the case was registered. According to him the whole affair seems to be a fishy one. He also pointed out that Muhammad Ismail (P.W.2), the solitary witness as to the recovery of the buffalo at the instance of the appellant was a resident of a place 26/27 miles from the place of recovery and none from the place of recovery was associated by the police. He also drew the attention of the Court to the statement of Muhammad Jaffar, complainant (P.W.1) who denied the suggestion in cross-examination as to case having been registered against him at the instance of the appellant for the theft of his mare. He, however, admitted that the appellant only suspected him and levelled allegations against him in this regard but he claims to have given proof of his innocence. It, therefore, meant that even before the recovery of the alleged buffalo the complainant was having no cordial relations with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed ;out that according to the very report under section 173, Cr.P.C. the appellant had been arrested on 25-7-1980 under section 54, Cr.P.C. in case F.I.R. No. 166, dated 2-9-1976 and on the same day he was shown arrested in the present case as well but dishonestly in the report the date of his arrest which was originally recorded as 25-7-1980, was interfered with and changed to 26-7-1980. This is apparent from the record. Hence the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are weighty that perhaps a false case was cooked up.

5. The appellant is, therefore, granted the benefit of doubt and is acquitted. His appeal stands accepted. He is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. H.B.T./M-3226/L Appeal accepted.