1969 P Cr (PLP)

AKRAM, J.‑

The appellant, Qurban Ali, a Sub‑Inspector of Police, was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, under sections 201 and 218, Penal Code and sentenc ed to one year's rigorous imprisonment under each section the sen tences to run concurrently. His appeal was dismissed by the Chief court of Sind and he thereupon preferred the present appeal on obtaining our special leave. Shortly stated, the case against the appellant was that in connection with an occurrence which took place on the 9ih October 1949, and resulted in the death of a police informer Yar Muhammad from gun‑shot wounds, the appellant with a view to screen the real offenders, recorded two false first informa tion reports by making therein certain incorrect statements facts. It was also alleged that there was a substantial discrepancy between the first information report dated the 9th October 1949, against Kechi, Wali Muhammad and Yar Muhammad under sec tion 401, Penal Code, and the subsequent report dated the 12th October 1949, for an offence under section 304 in which there was no mention made of any one as the accused. It was, however, in connection with this latter report that the appellant was con victed and sentenced, as stated above. The case for the prosecution was that one Kechi had purchas ed a cow for Rs. 150 from a man named Wali Muhammad about two years ago; that Rs. 100 was paid at the time of the transaction and there was a balance of Rs. 50 left outstanding ; that Wali Muhammad approached Kechi on the 8th October 1949, fur payment and Kechi, who expected to get some property left by this deceased brother‑in‑law, which was seized by the police at Kotri, asked Wali Muhammad to accompany him for identify ing him before the S. D. O.; that they both reached Kotri Station at about 1‑30 a. m. and then proceeded on foot towards the town; on the way they saw a man going a little ahead and when they came near the police station, they heard a gunshot and saw the man in front fall down ; some more shots were then heard and thereafter a party of police‑men including the appellant came, up and arrested Kechi and Wali Muhammad. The plea in defence was that Yar Mohd the informer, had given information to the appellant that an armed gang was going to raid the house of Mr. Arain, Assistant Executive Engineer, on the 9th October 1949; that accordingly the appellant had laid a trap to capture the culprits and frustrate their design and for that purpose had requested Ghulam Resul, Municipal Councillor and one Muhammad Khurshid to come and to give them assistance; that at about 2 a. m. a party of four men were noticed near the bungalow of Mr. Arain; that these men as soon as they realised the situation, started running in the direction where Muhammad Bakhsh, Head Constable and Ghulam Rasul, Municipal Councillor, had taken up their position; that one of the men started firing in the air and escaped; that another Yar Muhammad, the police informer, was shot through the thigh by Ghulam Rasul and expired, that the remaining two, Kechi and Wali Muhammad, were overtaken and captured; that the first information report dated the 9th October 1949, was record ed within 15 minutes of the incident stating facts as they appeared at the time to have occurred; that the other first information report dated the 12th October 1949, was lodged "in compliance with the orders of the D. S. P., Dadu", after making some investigation as regards the facts of the case. Both the Courts below, however, convicted and sentenced the appellant under sections 201 and 218 of the Penal Code, as stated above, taking the view that the statements contained in the first information report dated the 12th October 1949, where false statements knowingly and intentionally made by the appellant for screening and saving the offender Ghulam Rasul. The Sessions Judge in the course of his judgment has however, remarked that "since both the parties have tried to suppress the true facts and have adduced false evidence, it is not possible to determine what actually happened at the scene offence and how this incident took place". It is obvious that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was that both the prosecution and the defence versions were false and true. On appeal the Chief Court of Sind has not reversed this finding or determined what were the true facts of the case. It is difficult in the circumstances to say that the statements in the first information report dated the 12th October 1949, were false statements deliberately made for causing evidence of the offence to disappear or for screening or saving any person from legal punishment by laying the foundation for a case of self‑defence which according to the report dated the 9th October 1949, was not available indeed in the first information report dated the 9th October 1949, it is clearly stated that "in self‑defence Ghulam Rasul fired his private gun which hit one of the accused at his left thigh". We are unable in the circumstances, to hold that the statements the first information report dated the 12th October 1949, were false and were made by the appellant with the requisite knowledge and intention under sections 201 and 218 of the Penal code. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and the sentence and acquit the appellant. Appeal accepted.