GHOUSA Versus THE STATE Mazharul-Haq , Shamas-ul-Qamar

The revision petition is directed against the order dated 29‑11‑1987 of Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereof the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30‑9‑1987 of MIC, Kamalia, whereby the learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year.

2. The prosecution case at the trial was that a mare and a calf of Khan Muhammad complainant was stolen during night three and a half months prior to 26th of December, 1985, when the F.I.R was registered, from his cattleshed. The complainant had tried to locate the thief and the stolen property of his own without informing the police and during that he had gone to the petitioner, where the petitioner had admitted of having stolen the mare and the calf of the complainant and had promised to return the same, after five days, which he accordingly did.

3. The F.I.R. was registered some time after the return of the stolen cattle.

4. At the trial, statements of three prosecution witnesses were recorded. Khan Mohammad complainant (PW 1) narrated the facts noted above. Hamid (PW 2) although corroborated the statement of Khan Mohammad complainant about mare having been stolen and the same having been returned but he did not state anything about the alleged confession of the petitioner before him, although he stated that suspicion was expressed against the petitioner. Manzur Ahmad (PW 3) was the Investigating Officer. Neither the stolen property was recovered in his presence nor the petitioner had made any statement before him.

5. The conviction of the petitioners thus rests on the statement, made by Khan Muhammad complainant alone. He is the witness of recovery and he is the person before him the petitioner is said to have made confession. He had not reported the matter to the police for three and a half months. He made the report to the police after the stolen property was recovered. There is no corroboratory evidence on record. On the other hand, two persons had appeared in defence one of them is real brother of the complainant, who had negated the statement made by the complainant, by stating that no theft had taken place.

6. The conviction of the petitioner thus appears to be on insufficient evidence and so cannot be maintained. The petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

S.A./G‑131/L Acquitted.