1989 P Cr (PLP)

Saeed Ahmad and Abdul Ghafoor appellants were tried by Magistrate Section 30, Layyah, for offences under sections 457 and 380, P.P.C. as under:‑ Under section 457, P.P.C.‑‑Five years' R.I, and a fine of Rs.2,000 each in default whereof further R.I. for three months each. Under section 380, P.P.C..‑‑ Three years' R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the concession of the provisions of section 382‑B, CCY.C. was allowed. They have come up in appeals which are being disposed of by this single judgment. .

2. The prosecution case, as given in the F.I.R. lodged by Faryad complainant (P.W.2) was that on the night of 7/8‑11‑1987 the two appellants were caught red‑handed in his house while committing theft. They were apprehended by him alongwith his son, Abid Hussain (given up P.W.) and nephew Tanweer Hussian (P.W.3) with sewing machine, water cooler and other articles of the house (Exhs.P.2 to P.3) valuing Rs.2,

155. As Saeed appellant had resisted while being apprehended so he was given Soti blows by Abid Hussain and Tanweer P.W. They were brought to the police in morning and' produced alongwith the stolen articles.

3. The appellants did not plead guilty to the charge and Saeed appellant took up the plea that as the complainant suspected him of having illicit connections with his daughter so he had been falsely involved in complicity with the police. Ghafoor appellant also adopted this plea.

4. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence provided by the two eye‑witnesses, Dr. Ghulam Mustafa (P.W.1) and S.I. Mukhtar Ali (P.W.4) the investigator, concluded the charge against the appellants with the sentences, as indicated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the appreciation of the evidence and the conclusions drawn by the learned Magistrate. His only assertions are that the theft of goods of the value of Rs.2,155 was alleged and proved, the appellants were not previous convicts and Saeed appellant had been behind the bars for one year and four months during and after the trial while Ghafoor appellant had been behind the bars for more than six months. The learned State counsel did not seriously challenge the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants in this respect.

6. I have been taken through the statements of the eye‑witnesses and it is proved from their statements that the appellants were caught red‑handed after having committed theft, but they being previous non‑convicts, the sentences already undergone would suffice. While maintaining the conviction, the sentences of the appellants are reduced to those already undergone by them. The appeals' are disposed of accordingly. S.A./A‑701/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduced.