1989 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑ This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No. VI, Bahawalpur, whereby he on 14‑9‑1988, acquitted Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Iqbal, Fazal‑ur‑Rehman and Muhammad Khan respondents of the charges under section 397/392/411, P.P.C.

2. According to the F.I.R. three unknown persons, whose descriptions have been given therein had robbed currency notes and identity cards from Saeed Ahmad P.W.4, Driver of Bus No. LES‑8412, Muhammad Afzal, Conductor of the Bus, P.W.5, Muhammad Shahid P.W.6 and other passengers on 16‑3‑1988 at 3‑00 a.m. in the area of Chak No. 7/Fordwah, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar.

3. During investigation Shaukat Murtaza, S.H.O. P.W. 8, arrested Muhammad lqbal and Muhammad Aslam respondents on 22‑4‑1988. Fazal‑ur- Rehman and Muhammad Khan respondents were arrested by him on 23‑4‑1988. In the parade held for the identification of the accused on 25‑4‑1988, the eye witnesses namely Saeed Ahmad P.W.4, Muhammad Afzal P.W.5 and Muhammad Shahid P.W.6 correctly identified the four respondents as culprits. The identification parade was conducted by Rana Abdul Majeed, Tehsildar, P.W.3. On 1‑5‑1988 Muhammad Aslam led to the recovery of currency notes Exh.P.10/1 to 8, currency notes Exh.P.10/9 and identity card Exh.P.9 of Muhammad Shahid P.W.6, from a box lying in his residential house which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.I attested by Muhammad Arshad A.S.I. P.W.2 and Shaukat Murtaza, S.H.O. P.W.8. On the same day Muhammad Iqbal got recovered tape -recorder Exh.P.11 and currency notes Exh.P.12/1‑11 from his house which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.J. attested by the same witnesses. On the same day Fazal‑ur‑Rehman respondent got recovered identity card Exh.P.8 of Saeed Ahmad P.W.4 from near Railway Station, Sadiqpur, which was taken into possession. On the same day, Muhammad Khan respondent got recovered identity card Exh.P.6 of Muhammad Afzal P.W. from near Railway Station, Sadiqpur, which was taken into possession. The memoranda were attested by the same witnesses.

4. To prove its case, prosecution produced 8 witnesses. Saced Ahmad P.W.4 Muhammad Afzal P.W.5 and Muhammad Shahid P.W.6 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claimed to have seen and identified the four respondents, forcibly removing currency notes, identity cards from them and tape‑recorder from the Bus. Muhammad Arshad A.S.I. P.W.2 and Shaukat Murtaza S.H.O. P.W.8 have deposed about the recoveries of currency notes, tape -recorder and identity cards from the respondents. Rana Abdul Majeed, Tehsildar P.W.3 has proved the proceedings of identification parade. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the respondents denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not produce any witness in defence.

6. Disbelieving the 3 eye‑witnesses as well as the witnesses of alleged recoveries of cash, tape‑recorder and identity cards from the respondents, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents.

7. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General submitted that there is ample reliable evidence to prove the charges against the respondents; that the judgment of the trial Court is based on surmises and' conjectures and that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the prosecution evidence.

8. Having devoted our fullest care and consideration to the case in its entirety, in the light of the well‑recognised principles laid down by the superior Courts for interference with the judgment of acquittal, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned AA.‑G. We find that the trial Court has carefully attended to the relevant evidence and has given sound and cogent reasons for disbelieving the ocular account of the occurrence furnished by the eye‑witnesses and the evidence of incriminating recoveries from the respondents. The reasons given by the trial Court find support from the evidence on record. On our independent assessment of the evidence, we find that the prosecution evidence suffers from material discrepancies, major contradictions and dishonest improvements. According to the F.I.R. there were 3 robbers, whereas the eye witnesses including the first informant have named and identified four persons as robbers, at the time of trial. In their statements before the Court they stated that the robbers had removed tape‑recorder of the bus at the time of occurrence, whereas the F.I.R. does not disclose the removal of tape‑recorder. Before the identification parade, the respondents were removed to different police stations. So the possibility of their having been shown to the 3 eye‑witnesses cannot be excluded. The identification parade was held after 40 days of the occurrence, so it is doubtful that the eye‑witnesses could correctly identify the culprits had they not seen them during interval. On 22‑4‑1988 Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Iqbal had led the police to their residential houses for the recoveries of fire‑arms. We police could easily recover the stolen property from them on that date. Astonishingly, the stolen property was recovered from the same houses on 1‑5‑1988 and that, too, on their pointation: There was no fun to snatch the identity cards of the witnesses and keeping them buried near the Railway Station, Sadiqpur. No person from the public has been produced by the prosecution in proof of the incriminating recoveries from the respondents. The trial Court has not taken the perverse view of the evidence, rather has given cogent reasons for rejecting the prosecution case, we do not see any substantial and compelling reason to interfere with the well‑reasoned judgment of acquittal.

9. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S‑403/L Appeal dismissed.