AFTAB ALI vs The STATE
This petition arises from a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was subsequently modified by the Lahore High Court to a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the courts below improperly relied on the testimony of two police officials as the sole witnesses to the recovery of a stolen gun at a bus stop, and contended that the prosecution failed to establish the petitioner's knowledge that the item was stolen. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether implicit reliance should be placed on police witnesses when independent witnesses were readily available, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the requisite knowledge of the stolen nature of the property. Additionally, the Court addressed the procedural issue of the petitioner's failure to surrender after conviction, directing the petitioner to surrender before the trial court to be taken into custody before being released on bail pending the appeal.
- Can a conviction for possession of stolen property be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when independent witnesses were available?
- Is it a procedural requirement for a petitioner to surrender to custody before a petition for leave to appeal is entertained?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused had knowledge that the property in their possession was stolen?
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition arises from the facts that the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha under section 412, P.P.C. For keeping a gun robbed in a dacoity which was recovered from his possession at Bus Stop in the presence of to police officials namely Sikandar Hayat and Muhammad Anwar P.Ws. And was sentenced to seven years' R.I., and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default 2 years' R.I. On appeal, the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide impugned judgment has converted conviction from section 412 to section 411, P.P.C. On the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the petitioner knew that the gun was transferred in the process of dacoity and set aside the sentence of fine and reduced rigorous imprisonment from seven years to three years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Courts below should not have relied on the statements of the to police officials in this case and that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the petitioner knew that the gun was stolen in a theft.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether implicit reliance should have been placed on the to policemen more particularly when other witnesses could easily be available at the bus stand and also to consider whether the prosecution has been able to show that the accused/petitioner knew the gun to be stolen one.
4. At this stage it has come to our notice that the petitioner after his conviction has not surrendered himself. The Office should not have entertained this petition or at least not to this effect should have been recorded on the front page of the petition. Since we have granted leave to appeal, therefore, we do not want to withdraw it. The petitioner shall first surrender himself before the trial Court who will take him into custody and then release him on bail furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.