Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision Application No. 49 of 1972; decided on 28th April 1977.
‑‑ S. 439‑Concurrent findings of facts based on‑correct evaluation. of evidence‑Ornaments recovered from accused of exact description as given in F. I. R.‑Contention that ornaments belonged to accused's wife and accused falsely implicated by complainant his employer to avoid payment of salaries accrued due to accused Contention, held, not tenable, in circumstances‑Conviction and sentence maintained.
Salima Nasiruddin for Applicant.
Nazir Alam for the State.
Date of hearing : 28th April 1977.‑
This revision application is directed against the judgment of Sessions judge, Karachi dated 8‑3‑1912 affirming the conviction of the applicant for offence under section 411, P. P. C. and a sentence of 12 months' R. I. and fine of Rs. 300 or in default further R. 1. For 3 months passed by A. C. M. Court No. 11, Karachi.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that complainant Mst. Mussarat Jehan and her sister Shahnaz resided_ with their mother in a house at Nazimabad. Mst. Shehnaz worked as a film; actress. On the night between 24th and 25th July, 1970 complainant Mst. Mussarat, Jehan had accompanied her sister to Eastern Studios and on her return, she had kept her purse containing the gold necklace, pair of gold earrings and a gold bracelet in the drawer of the side table of her bed. In the morning she found the purse hanging from the dressing table and on opening it she found her ornaments missing. A report was then lodged with the Police on the same day at 9‑30 p.m. In the F. I. R. she showed suspicion against driver Ranjha the present applicant and the washerman who had access too the house. The police commenced, the investigation. The applicant wasftinterrogated on 1‑10‑1970. He then stated to the Police that, ornaments were kept in his house. He led the police and the mashirs from, his box, which he opened with a key the goldyornaments.were, recovered lying with his clothes. Complainant Mst. Mussarat Jehan identified them and they were according to the description given in the F.1. R. Namely, one gluband or gold necklace, one kara or gold bracelet and one pair of jhumka or ear‑rings of gold. The applicant was then sent up in Court. The version of the applicant was that these ornaments belonged to his wife. He produced his wife and one Anwar who worked in the shop of a goldsmith as defence witnesses, to establish that 12 gold bangles were got melted and out of the gold, the necklace, the ear rings and bracelet had been got made by the applicant.
3. It has been argued that Mst. Mussarat and her younger sister Shehnaz have falsely implicated the applicant because they owed the applicant arrears of salary and in order to avoid payment of salary they lodged a false report. It is, however, hard to believe that the ladies who1 were working as him artists would approach the police and lodge a false report just to avoid payment of the salary of their driver. It has then been argued that the identity of the stolen ornaments has not been established. Mst. Mussarat Jehan has, however, stated in her evidence that the ornaments recovered by the police are her property. She had produced the jeweller's name and address on the card before the police though she had not actually produced the bill or the cash memo. The person who wears the ornaments constantly and keeps them in the purse can easily identify them. The orna ments of similar description were found from the suitcase of the driver they were just the ornaments, which had been mentioned, in the first report and they were neither more nor less than the ornaments shown there. Such a coincidence is rare. It cannot, therefore, be believed that these ornaments would be the property of the applicant's wife.
4. The appreciation and evaluation of evidence by both the Court .1 below cannot, therefore be called in question. In view of these concurrent findings of fact there appears hardly any reason for interference. The conviction and sentence passed against the applicant are accordingly main tained and the revision application is dismissed.
5. The applicant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and he may be remanded to custody to serve out the remaining portion of his sentence.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer