Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 8/BWP of 1982, decided on 29th August, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption, Act (II of 1974), S. 5(2)‑‑Accused (a police official) criminally trespassing house of complainant and giving beating to him and demanding and accepting a certain amount as illegal gratification as a motive to let him off‑‑Prosecution case fully supported by eye‑witnesses‑‑Medical evidence corroborated statements of eye witnesses‑‑Witnesses having no ill‑will towards accused‑‑No material contradiction pointed out in their statements‑‑Prosecution witnesses faced test of cross‑examination successfully‑‑No inherent infirmities found in their statement‑‑Witnesses found to be inspiring confidence‑‑Defence evidence not strong enough to rebut prosecution case‑‑Prosecution, held, successfully proved charge against accused‑‑Conviction maintained In circumstances.

‑‑‑--S. 5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Sentence‑‑Alteration of‑‑Accused not only losing his service but also suffering agony of protracted trial‑‑Sentence of imprisonment altered to fine in circum stances.‑‑[Sentence].

Sardar Muhammad Aslam Khan for Appellant.

Sh. A. Hamid for the State.

Date of hearing: 29th August, 1984.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Bahawalpur, whereby he on 30‑1‑1982 convicted Muhammad Bakhsh Faridi appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 in default thereof to further R.I. for six months under section 161, P.P.C. and to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.100 in default thereof to further R.I. for 3 months under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with the direction that the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The appellant was posted as A.S.I. P.S. Khairpur Tamewali. The charge against him was that he illegally raided the house of Noor Hassan P.W.1, gave beating to him, demanded and accepted Rs.200 as illegal gratification as a motive to let him of. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 9 witnesses out of whom Noor Hassan P.W. 1, Wahid Bakhsh P.W. 2 and Muhammad Shafi P.W. 3 appeared to prove the charge of corruption against him. Dr. Mukhtar Nasim P.W. 9 was produced to prove medical report regarding injuries to Noor Hassan. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication due to enmity. In defence he produced 3 witnesses. Muhammad Khan D.W. 1 stated that Noor Hassan complainant was his maternal‑nephew and that he had falsely involved the appellant. Shahsawar D.W. 2 stated that Noor Hassan complainant was in the habit of given false application against public servants. Ghaus Muhammad D.W. 3 stated that Noor Hassan complainant was never brought to his Dera by the appellant and that on illegal gratification was received by the appellant and that Noor Hassan has falsely implicated him.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution witnesses being relatives inter se are not reliable that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies and that the appellant has successfully rebutted the prosecution case and its evidence.

Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and have not been able to persuade myself t to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that Noor Hassan, Wahid Bakhsh and Muhammad Shafi P.Ws. have fully supported the prosecution case. They stated that the appellant had criminally trespassed into the house of the appellant and gave beating to him. The fact of injuries on the person of Noor Hassan corroborates the statements of these witnesses. They further stated that the appellant had received Rs.200 as illegal gratification at Dera of Ghaus Muhammad for letting of the complainant. These witnesses have successfully faced cross‑examination. They have no ill‑will against the appellant. The learned counsel has failed to point out any material contradiction/ discrepancy in their statements. The statements of these witnesses do not suffer from inherent infirmities. To my mind, they are confidence inspiring witnesses. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against the appellant and as such, he has rightly been convicted by the trial Court.

7. This brings me to the question of sentence. In the circumstances of the case, I feel inclined to alter the nature of sentence from imprison ment to a sentence of fine, inasmuch as, the appellant has not only lost his service but also suffered agony of protracted trial. The sentence of imprisonment is, therefore, altered to a fine of Rs.10,000. The fine already imposed by the trial Court is also maintained. Resultantly, the appellant shall pay Rs.10,000 in the trial Court within three months, in default thereof, he will suffer R.I. for two years. In case the appellant fails to deposit fine within three months, the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention.

S.G. D. Sentence altered.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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