1994 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J

Mushtaq alias Bigli (19), Nadeem alias Dooni (21), Muhammad Ijaz (21) and Muhammad Saeed (16) were tried by Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials (Constituted under subsection (3) of section 4 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1987), Faisalabad, for an offence under section 392/397, P.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 3-1-1989, they were convicted thereunder and sentenced to 10 years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.50,000 each or in default thereof 2-1/2 years' R.I. Out of the fine, if realised, Rs.10,000 were ordered to be paid to Muhammad Ramzan complainant (P.W.2) as compensation.

2. All the 4 filed appeal from jail (14/J of 1989). Muhammad Saeed also filed separate appeal through his counsel (266 of 1990). Both the appeals are, therefore, being disposed of by this judgment.

3. Muhammad Ramzan complainant (P.W.2) was going to his brick-kiln on 30-6-1988. When he reached near Punj-Poolia at 5-30 a.m. in the area of Chak No.123/J.B. at a distance of four furlongs from Police Station Ghulam Muhammadabad, he was overtaken by four young fellows riding on two motor cycles. They stopped him and demanded the documents of his motor-cycle. On his refusal, his purse containing Rs.25,000 was snatched from his person alongwith a few documents he was carrying, and threatened with a carbine. The key of his motor-cycle was removed and the four made good their escape on their motor-cycles. His alarm had attracted Abdul Majeed (P.W.3) and Ghulam Murtaza (given up). Statement (Exh.P.C.) narrating the above facts was made by Muhammad Ramzan complainant (P.W.2) to Muhammad Baqir S.H.O. (P.W.6) on 4-7-1988 and it was sent to the police station where formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.C./1) was registered. The reason for the delay in reporting, the matter is given to the effect that few persons were being suspected and were asked through Punchait.

4. Muhammad Baqir, S.H.O. (P.W.6) partly investigated the case. On 30-7-1988 during interrogation Nadeem and Muhammad Ijaz appellants ed to their rented room in Jamil Park Chak No.219/R.B. Faisalabad, wherefrom Ijaz got recovered cash of Rs.5,000, revolver (P.6) with 4 bullets (P.11/1 to 4). These were secured vide memos. (Exhs.P.F. and P.G.). Nadeem got recovered purse (P.1) containing cash of Rs.5,000, three chits (P.2/1.to 3) photo of Ramzan complainant (P.3) and tire key of his motor-cycle (P.4). These were secured vide memo. (Exh.P.D.). He also got recovered pistol (P.5) which was taken into possession vide memo. (Exh.P.E.).

5. Ghulam Rasool Sub-Inspector (P.W.5) on 4-7-1988 after recording the formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.C./1) reached the place of occurrence, inspected it and prepared rough site plan (Exh.P.L.). On 17-7-1988 he learnt that Nadeem and Ijaz accused were in the custody of Police Station Civil Lines, reached there and formally arrested them in the present case. They were produced before Tariq Ahmad, Magistrate and were sent to judicial lock-up as their identification parade was to be arranged. He moved application on 18-7-1988 (Exh.P.A./1) to A.C. City to depute a Magistrate who, vide order (Exh.P.A) deputed the Illaqa Magistrate for holding an identification parade. This was held in jail on 19-7-1988. This very Sub-Inspector arrested Mushtaq alias Bigli and Muhammad Saeed appellants from a Chauk in Ghulam Muhammadabad and they were sent to judicial lock-up on the sagze day under the order of a Magistrate as their identification parade was also to be arranged. On that very day he submitted application (Exh.P.B./1) to A.C. City Faisalabad, who passed the order (Exh.P.B./2) and directed the Illaqa Magistrate to hold the parade. On 27-7-1988 identification parade was held by Mr. Muhammad Zaheer Khan, Magistrate 1st Class (P.W.1). Thereafter the Sub-Inspector obtained the physical remand of Mushtaq and Saeed appellants on 28-7-1988. On 30-7-1988 both led to Jamil Park in Chak No.219/R.B. Saeed got recovered cash of Rs.5,000 from a trunk lying in a room of Mushtaq, a revolver (P.7) with three bullets (P.8/1 to 3) and these were secured vide memo. (Exh.P.I.). Mushtaq, appellant also got recovered cash of Rs.5,000 from a trunk lying in his house, a carbine (P.9), and 7 cartridges (P.10/1 to 7). All these were taken into possession vide memo. (Exh.P.K.). He denied that he arrested Nadeem and Ijaz accused on 14-7-1988 from Railway Station, Faisalabad, showed them to the witnesses and that later on arranged their identification parade. He also denied that he arrested Mushtaq appellant on 19-7-1988 at 10-00 p.m. while coming from Nishat Cinema after enjoying a movie. He further denied that Saeed was arrested by him from General Bus-stand Faisalabad, at 8-00 p.m. on 17-7-1988 and was shown to the witnesses. He further denied that the recoveries were planted by him falsely.

6. Muhammad Zaheer Khan, Magistrate 1st Class (P.W.1) stated that under the order of the A.C. dated 18-7-1988, he held an identification parade in jail on 19-7-1988. The parade was arranged including Nadeem and Ijaz appellant mixing them with 19 other under-trial prisoners. The witnesses were called one by one, both of them were correctly identified by Muhammad Ramzan, Ghulam Murtaza and Abdul Majeed P.Ws. This very Magistrate held the identification parade in jail on 27-7-1988 wherein Mushtaq and Saeed appellants were present with 16 other under-trials. The witnesses were called one by one, both were correctly picked up by Muhammad Ramzan P.W. as well as Abdul Majeed and Ghulam Murtaza P.Ws. He also stated that both Saeed and Mushtaq had raised the objection that they had been shown to the witnesses about 10 days before parade, in Police Station Ghulam Muhammadabad. He denied that Nadeem and Ijaz had also raised similar objection. He also denied that he had called the accused in his Court and conducted the identification parade over there.

7. Muhammad Ramzan complainant (P.W.2) supported the version given; in the F.I.R. He also stated that he had taken part in the two identification parades and correctly picked up the four appellants. He denied that the appellants had been shown to him before the parade when they were in the custody of the police or that the police had arrested the appellants on mere suspicion. He is corroborated by Abdul Majeed P.W. as to the main occurrence as well as the identification parade of the appellants in jail. He also proved the recovery of the cash and the other articles from Nadeem and Ijaz appellants, Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.4) deposed about the recoveries from Mushtaq and Saeed appellants on 30-7-1988.

8. From the statements of the complainant and Abdul Majeed P.W. it is clear that the highway robbery took place in the early morning on the day of occurrence, the matter was reported to the police after a few days after the occurrence and none was named as the culprit. Only the features and general appearance of the four culprits were given. Muhammad Baqir S.H.O. and Ghulam Rasool Sub-Inspector (P.Ws.6 and 5) arrested the appellants (two each as detailed above) got sent them to the judicial lock-up and in the identification parades held by Muhammad Zaheer Khan, Magistrate they were correctly picked up by the three eye-witnesses out of them Ramzan and Majeed had appeared in the witness-box. No enmity with the eye-witnesses or the recovery witnesses has even been suggested to them. The Police Officers also seem to have acted in a straightforward manner and the identification of the appellants in the parade by the witnesses is very strong positive evidence.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were arrested, kept by the police in illegal custody, shown to the witnesses and false recovery of cash and arms planted upon them and so the identification parade was of no avail. As detailed and appreciated above, the eye-witnesses are independent, the Police Officers seem to have acted in a straightforward manner. The contention must be rejected.

10. The upshot is that the appeals against conviction fail and are hereby dismissed. However, the appellants are very young in age, so the sentence is reduced to 7 years' R.I. to each of them. There is also no evidence that they are C doing some job or business or were otherwise wealthy persons, so the sentence of fine to each of them is reduced to Rs.5,000 or in default thereof six months' R.1. In view of the nature of the offence they would not have the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./M_1326/L Sentence reduced.