Find a Lawyer

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 392--Accused neither named in First Information Report nor put to identification parade--No money robbed or any weapon of offence recovered from accused--Eye-witnesses, who made statement that accused was one of culprits who had robbed money, not asked to join identification parade--Non-mentioning of identification marks of. accused in First Information Report going to prove that prosecution witness had not seen him--Prosecution failing to establish case against accused beyond doubt--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Sardar Ata Ullah for Petitioner.

Muhammad Rafiq for A-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th February, 1984.

The petitioner alongwith Nausher was convicted by the Magistrate 1st Class, Faisalabad vide order dated 4-2-1979 under section 392, P.P. C , , was sentenced to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default of payment of fine td suffer one month R.I. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated, 6th December, 1981.

The petitioner has challenged the order of the lower Court and that of the appellate Court by way of this Revision Petition.

2, The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not named in the F .I. R . nor he was put to identification parade. It has been submitted that neither the decoyed money was recovered from him, nor any weapon of offence. It is submitted that the only evidence against the petitioner is the statements of two vendors of the Tea-stall, located outside the Mills, that the petitioner was also one of the culprits who had decoyed the money.

3. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner find support from the record. The contention of the learned counsel that A had the Tea-stall vendors P.Ws. seen the petitioner, they would have been asked to join the identification parade, also carries weight. The other argument that the non-mentioning of the identification marks of the petitioner in the F.I.R. is proof of the fact that the P.Ws. had not seen him because in case they had seen him they would have informed the complainant who would positively have mentioned this fact also in the F.I.R., also carries weight. Had the P.Ws. claimed that they would be able to identify the petitioner, the Investigation Officer would have definitely put the petitioner to identification test.

4. Having gone through the record and having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner I feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond doubt. The petitioner is given the benefit of doubt and is acquitted.

M . Y. H .

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.