2006 PLP 2240 (YLR)

MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM?UZ-ZAMAN, J.

Respondents Syed Riaz Hussain Shah and Muhammad Nawaz were tried in case No.244 of 1992, dated 6-9-1992 registered under sections 451/342, P.P.C. at Police Station, Khushab by Magistrate Section 30, Khushab, who vide judgment dated 18-5-2002 convicted both the respondents under section 451, P.P.C. and sentenced them to two years' R.I. each with a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default whereof to undergo three months' S.I. each. They were also convicted under section 342, P.P.C. and sentenced them to one year's R.I. each. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the respondents. Appeal against the said judgment was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, vide judgment dated 14-1-2003. Hence the instant appeal challenging the legality of the said judgment.

2. Succinctly the prosecution case as contained in complaint Exh.P.A. is that on 29-7-1992 at about 7-30 p.m. two plain clothed persons while entering the complainant's house, assaulted him and insisted him to accompany them to the A police station and on his resistance, the said persons also misbehaved with the wife and daughter of the complainant. The complainant took up gun, climbed up the roof and threatened them to leave his house, lest he would resort to firing, whereupon they got escaped. He then left the house for some redressal and in this absence, about one hour later 14/15 police officials in uniform reached there in a van, headed by Riaz Hussain Shah, A.S.-I., who climbed into house and took away his wife and daughter to the police station, where they assaulted his wife and abused her. Later, they were released before reaching of the neighbourers at the police station.

3. Before the trial Court prosecution produced Ghulam Yasin P.W. 1 (complainant), Muhammad Sharif P.W.2, Muhammad Maqbool P.W.3, Mst. Saffan Bibi P.W.4 (wife of the complainant) and Mst. Ghulam Fauzia P.W.5 (daughter of the complainant) as eye-witnesses as well as Sabir Hussain, S.-I. P.W.6, who conducted the investigation of the case.

4. It is submitted that the trial Court after proper appraisal of evidence convicted the respondents but the appellate Court while misreading the evidence had erroneously acquitted both the respondents from the charge. It is further submitted that the evidence available on record is sufficient to show that the respondents who are police officials while trespassing into the house of the complainant gave beatings to the inmates of the house, thereafter took away the ladies to the police station and confined them in the police station for any hours and that in the circumstances prosecution has proved its case to the hilt. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no direct evidence on record to show that the respondents were the persons, who had trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused injuries to the ladies. It is submitted that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the identity of the assailants. Learned counsel has also pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution and has argued that the eye-witnesses who had appeared before the trial Court are not trustworthy and the learned appellate Court has rightly disbelieved them while acquitting respondents from the charges.

5. Heard. File perused.

6. The bare perusal of the data available on record reveals that the complainant and the prosecution witnesses did not know the accused who had trespassed into their house on 29-7-1992 at B 7-30 p.m., belaboured the ladies of the house, taken them to the police station and confined them there for many days but subsequently, on the basis of same information conveyed by Mohallandars as well as the F.I.R. No.202 of 1992, for the offences under sections 186/188, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Khushab, wherein it has been specifically stated that Shahid Mehmood along with Muhammad Nawaz had gone to the house of the complainant for the execution of Hukamnama Talbi/respondents were involved in this case. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by the trial Court in the year 2000 i.e. after about ten years of the occurrence. No doubt the identification by the witnesses in the Court after such a long period is of no value but the registration of the above-said F.I.R. in which Muhammad Nawaz, respondent had accepted his presence is sufficient to show that at the relevant time he was present in the house of the complainant. As far Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, S.-I. is concerned, statedly he came to the house of the complainant in his absence. He was not known to the inmates of the house i.e. ladies who were taken into the police station where they were confined. To his extent the case of the prosecution is full of doubts. Accordingly, to his extent finding no force in this appeal, the same stands dismissed. From the statements of Ghulam Yasin, P.W.1, Mst. Safan Bibi P.W.4 and Mst. Fauzia Bibi, P.W.5, it is very much clear that Muhammad Nawaz along with the c police officials had raided the house of the complainant and while trespassing into the house, they gave beatings to the ladies whereafter they were taken to the police station and illegally detained for many hours at the police station. The statements of these witnesses coupled with the factum of registration of case F.I.R. No.202 of 1992 where in the presence of Muhammad Nawaz respondent has been shown is sufficient to prove the case against Muhammad Nawaz respondent. Learned counsel for Muhammad Nawaz has also failed to show any document or evidence to say that respondent had gone to the house of complainant for execution of Hukaml Nama Talbi under some valid order. Admittedly the said F.I.R. has also been cancelled. Accordingly, to his extent this appeal is accepted, and the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court in this regard is set aside and the judgment of trial Court is upheld. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence. H.B.T./G-27/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.