1991 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Ramzan petitioners were tried by a Magistrate of the 1st Class at Mianwali, for having been found in possession of a stolen tractor belonging to the Government, and vide his judgment, dated 7-5-1983, were convicted under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I.

2. A tractor belonging to the Agricultural Department was stolen during the night between 20th and 21st of February, 1982 and on the report of Assistant Director (Farms) Mianwali, a case of its theft was registered against unknown persons. About 18/20 days after the incident, S.I. Muhammad Nazir of Police Station Kundian, in the presence of Muhammad Sadiq and Ghulam Muhammad P.Ws., happened to spot out the stolen tractor near the bridge of Musa Khel minor in the vicinity of village Wah Bachran and seizing the same from their possession, challaned them to the Court concerned.

3. During the trial Muhammad. Sadiq (P.W.1), Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.2) and S.I. Muhammad Nazir (P.W.4) supported the, prosecution version and on the basis of their testimony the petitioners were eventually convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Magistrate, the petitioners went up in appeal to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, but they remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed, vide judgment, dated 30-8-1983. They, therefore, invoked the revision jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The perusal of the interim order, dated 12-11-1983 indicates that the revision petition to the extent of Muhammad Nawaz convict/petitioner was dismissed and it was admitted to regular hearing only to the extent of Muhammad Ramzan convict/petitioner.

5. It is argued on behalf of Muhammad Ramzan petitioner that one of the recovery witnesses was Lambardar and stock-witness of the police and the other was his relation. It is contended that they belonged to village Ban Sumbal which was situated quite a few miles away from the place where the tractor was allegedly seized about more than a fortnight after it was stolen, and there could be no possibility of their being present with the Police Officer. In the opinion of the learned counsel, the recovery of the stolen tractor was effected by some other method and it was in fact planted on the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has tried to support the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, mainly on the ground that there was no enmity between the prosecution witness and the petitioner and as such there could be no possibility of his false implication.

7. It is in evidence that Muhammad Sadiq and Ghulam Muhammad belonged to a village which was quite a few miles away from the place where the stolen tractor was seized in their presence by S.I. Muhammad Nasir They explained their presence at the time of its seizure by saying that on that day they had gone to Wah Bhachran to see his co-villager Zulfiqar who was labourer in Food Department. This claim of theirs was falsified by Zulfiqar aforesaid who appearing as D.W.1 stated that they had never come to him. Muhammad Altaf (D.W.2), a Zamindar of village Wah Bhachran, testified that the place near which the stolen tractor was allegedly seized, never fell on the way which the witnesses had allegedly treated while coming to Wah Bhachran.

8. No doubt, there was no animosity between the recovery witnesses and the petitioner but one of them was Lambardar of the village and the other w? near relation. It is well-known that a Lambardar is ordinarily under the thumb of the local police and he is generally used as a stock witness. I am, therefore,' inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the recovery witnesses deposed against the petitioner under the influence of the police, which was naturally interested in the success of, its case, once it was placed before the Court for trial.

9. In view of the above, the revision petition is accepted, the conviction and sentence of Muhammad Ramzan petitioner are set aside, and he is acquitted on benefit of doubt. He is already on bail and stands discharged from his liability under the bail bond. SA./R-302/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.