1981 P Cr (PLP)

Kh. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Yameen for the State. Date of hearing : 8th February, 1981. Abdur Rashid was convicted under section 411, P. P. C. on 24thSeptember, 1974 and sentenced to six months' R. I. On appeal his sen tence was maintained. He bas come up in revision.

2. Faqir Muhammad and Muhammad Sharif cultivated the land of one Ibrahim. They jointly owned a tractor. On the night of occurrence after ploughing the land, they slept near the tractor and when they woke up in the morning they found it missing. They tried to trace it and went to the police station. They found the tractor there which had been recovered by P. W. 4, Farzand Ali, A. S. I. According to the prosecution on 14thNovember, 1973 at about 8 a.m. as he reached near Adda Khurian wala, he saw the petitioner driving the tractor. On suspicion he checked him. Since the petitioner could not satisfy about tractor's ownership, the A. S. I. took the tractor in his possession under section 550, Cr. P. C. Its recovery memo P. C. was attested by P. Ws. Hakim Allah Ditta and Muhammad Akbar. The case was registered, investigated and the accused was sent up for trial.

3. At the trial the accused denied guilt and ascribed the case to enmity. He led no evidence in defence. He further, said that he did not know how to drive a tractor. He was asked as to why he had been implicated in this case. He could not explain it at all. But the question for determination would be whether the prosecution has satisfactorily proved its case against the accused.

4. Oat of the two recovery witnesses Akbar Ali did not support the prosecution case. Hakim Allah Ditta P. W. 3, the second witness of the recovery admitted having appeared in a number of cases for the prosecution. He is admittedly a stock witness. It remains to be considered that why the statement of the Investigating Officer should not be relied upon because he is as good a witness as any other person. If find that to his statement he had said that there was only one person on the tractor when it was recovered but, according to Hakim Allah Ditta there were two persons on the tractor. Thus to my mind there is a material contradiction because the question of determining the liability of either of the two who were on the tractor was a matter to be considered during investigation. By putting up only one person on trial who claimed that he did not know how to drive a tractor the whole matter has became doubtful. It was strange that two persons who slept near the tractor did not get up when the tractor started. Normally when a tractor starts it makes a noise which attracts every one in the locality. The circumstances appearing in the prosecution case are doubtful, giving the benefit of doubt to petitioner, I accept this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit him. The petitioner is discharged of his bail bonds. Revision allowed.