MUHAMMAD HANEEF Versus THE STATE
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J .‑‑‑This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial Court No.IX, Gujranwala, whereby he on 27‑2‑1!`88 convicted Muhammad Hanif, Zafar lqbal, Sajjad Hussain and Ijaz Ahmad, appellants, under section 392, P.P.C. and sentenced them to fourteen years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.25,000 each or in default thereof to further two and a half years' R.I. each, with the direction that the fine, if realised, half of it be paid to Muhammad Aslam P.W. as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C.
2. The charge against the appellants was that on the night between 1/2‑11‑1986, they robbed Toyota Car No.5406/LEV from Muhammad Aslam P.W.2 in village Ratti Pindi of Police Station Parianwala, District Gujrat. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case the prosecution produced six witnesses. P.W.1 Naeem‑ul‑Haq, Magistrate 1st Class, conducted parade for the identification of the appellants in District Jail Gujrat. He stated that Muhammad Aslam P.W.2 had correctly identified the four appellants in the identification parade. Muhammad Aslam P.W.2 was/is a taxi driver. He stated that on the eventful day, Zafar lqbal and Ijaz Ahmad appellants approached him at Adda Jewan Motors to hire taxi car for Naurang. So he took them in his car towards Naurang. When the car had covered a distance of 10/15 miles, the other two appellants, namely, Sajjad and Muhammad Hanif were found standing there. He stopped his car. When the car stopped, Zafar Iqbal and Ijaz Ahmad appellants took out their fire‑arms threatened him to death and threw him out of the taxi car. Then the aforesaid four persons took away his car leaving him there. Abdul Rashid P.W.3 and Manager of United Bank Limited, Branch Dhandar. He stated that on 2‑11‑1986, the appellants had committed robbery in the Bank. After committing the robbery, they made good their escape in car No.54tK)/LEV, which was parked at a distance of 150 yards from the Bank. Thereafter, he and Amanat All followed the car on the motorcycle. The appellants left the car at a distance of one and a half kilometres on the roadside and ran away. Akhtar Hussain S.I. (P.W.4) had taken Car No.5406/LEV in his possession from the place where it was left by the appellants, as it case property of Bank dacoity case. He arrested the appellants on 12‑i1‑1986. Mukhtar Ahmad, Inspector, P.W.5, recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.B on the information of Muhammad Aslam P.W.2. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity. They did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. Believing the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants, stated above.
6. No one has appeared for the appellants. Since the appeal cannot/should not be dismissed for non‑prosecution so we have examined the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
7. We find that the appellants were charged for the robbery of taxi car of Muhammad Aslam P.W.2. They were not charged for the Bank robbery. To connect the appellants with the offence of robbery of the car of Muhammad Aslam P.W. except the solitary evidence of Muhammad Aslam, there is no other direct evidence against the appellants, although there is circumstantial evidence of Abdul Rashid P.W.3 to the effect that on 2‑11‑1986, he had seen the appellants in the stolen car of Muhammad Aslam after they had committed the robbery in his Bank. The appellants were not previously known to Abdul Rashid P.W.3. The prosecution did arrange parade for the identification of the appellants. Strangely enough, Abdul Rashid P.W.3 was not associated with the identification parade, so it cannot be said with judicial certainty that the persons whom he had seen using the stolen car of Muhammad Aslam P.W., were the appellants and none else. This being the position, there remains the uncorroborated solitary evidence of Muhammad Aslam P.W.2. On careful assessment of his evidence, we feel that he is a basically dishonest person. In the F.I.R. he stated that there were two culprits in all. In his evidence before the Court, he exaggerated the number of the culprits from two to four. In the identification parade, he identified four persons as offenders. He has not given any reasonable explanation of the improvement made by him in his statement before the Court. He has shown reckless disregarded to the sanctity of the oath on which he made a statement in the Court. We are convinced that he has given evidence with a motive other than that of telling the truth. So no implicit reliance can be placed on his statement. If his statement is excluded from consideration, then there remains no evidence to connect the appellants with the crime.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being no satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction of the appellants, the appeal is accepted and they are acquitted of the charge. They shall be released forthwith if not required to' be detained in any other case.
H.B.T./M‑3134/L Appeal accepted.