SHAMREZ vs The STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Hunza-Nagar, for the offence of theft of a motorcycle under section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given discrepancies in the identification of the stolen vehicle and the failure to establish the true ownership of the motorcycle. Upon review, the Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, noting that the vehicle identification numbers in the recovery memo did not match the actual vehicle, and the chain of title was unclear, with the vehicle being identified as a 'chabi chor' (stolen/fake) vehicle. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, thereby entitling the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The Court established the principle that where the ownership of stolen property is not clearly established and material discrepancies exist in the prosecution's evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
- Does a discrepancy between the vehicle identification numbers in the recovery memo and the actual stolen article create reasonable doubt in a theft case?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish the true ownership of the alleged stolen property?
- Can a conviction be sustained under section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the chain of title for the stolen vehicle is unclear?
- Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This is a criminal appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C., whereby, the appellant/convict has assailed conviction/sentence order dated 12-11-2015, passed by the Sessions Judge Hunza-Nagar in Sessions Case No,78 of 2014 of the said Court.
2. Police of Police Station Aliabad Hunza chalked FIR No,25/2014 against the appellant/convict and accused Mohammad Rafiq charging them for offence of section 381-A/34, P.P.C. Police submitted challan after investigation and the learned trial court framed charges of the alleged offences against the said two accused. As a conclusion of the trial, learned trial court passed impugned order, whereby, acquitted the accused Mohammad Rafiq and sentenced appellant/convict for the offences of section 381-A, P.P.C. for imprisonment of two years.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. Learned counsel for appellant/convict argued that prosecution has badly failed to establish guilt or the appellant beyond doat, therefore, the impugned order is fit to be set aside. In the opinion of learned counsel for appellant, the registration number and chasis number of the theft article, i,e,, the motorcycle are very important. In the case in hand, the said two numbers of the allegedly theft article are different from the same numbers written in recovery memo. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General was of the opinion that the appellant has been nominated in the FIR as suspect. Per prosecution story of occurrence, appellant sold the theft article to some other person and police has recovered the said amount of Rs,43,000/- (forty three thousand) as prices of the theft article and have returned the same to the person who allegedly paid the same amount to the appellant.
4. I have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellant and the learned Deputy Advocate General. In the case in hand, the question for determination is correct title of appellant or the complainant to the stolen article, i,e,, the motor-cycle. From record, i,e,, Exh.D/1, it is evident that one Mohammad Ali Akhtar Mughal son of Mohammad Bashir, House No,345, Misri Shah Lahore, sold the allegedly stolen motor-cycle to one Paki Jan son of Taur, resident of Matha Sawat, and the said person further sold the said stolen article to one Tariq son of Shukoor Ali resident of Hospital Road Gilgit, through Exh.D/2. Exh.D/3 is also an important document which shows that appellant purchased the said stolen article from one Zahid Gul. Anyhow, it is evident from record that the said document was prepared after occurrence, as the occurrence is of 30-10-2014 while the said document was prepared on 08-11-2014. A very important aspect of the case is that learned counsel for parties admitted at bar that the stolen article is being used in GB in the cover of a fake number as the same number is being used in the documents of actual motor-cycle somewhere else in Pakistan. Thus the counsel for appellant as well as the learned Deputy Advocate General termed the stolen vehicle as a chabi chor vehicle. So, this all shows that the real owner of the stolen article is not established and in such a situation police concerned is bound to correct its direction of investigation.
5. As the result of above discussion, the case against appellant is full of doubts and I give him the benefit of doubt. Appeal is allowed and impugned conviction/ sentence set aside. Appellate is acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Anyhow, police is free to reinvestigate the occurrence, if so advised. Appeal allowed. This file be consigned to record.