Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 173 of 1986, decided on 11th November, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 411‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Except for minor and immaterial contradictions and discrepancies here and there no major conflict between statements of prosecution witnesses pointed out‑‑Impugned judgment also not perverse‑‑Stolen property produced in Court and identified by complainant at time of his examination‑‑Mere non- production of case property at time of examination of Investigating Officer, held, would not be fatal to prosecution case‑‑Conviction and sentence maintained, in circumstances.

Anwar v. The State 1979 P Cr. L J Note 35 at p. 21 ref.

Mian Abbas Ahmad for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1986

8‑10‑1986: The contentions raised by the learned counsel require examination of the record pertaining to the lower Courts. Send for the record, so as to reach this Court within two weeks. To be relisted after the receipt of the record.

11‑11‑1986: The facts giving rise to this petition briefly are that Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner was tried under section 411, P.P.C. on the charge of being in possession of stolen property by Magistrate First Class, Khanewal. On the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Magistrate the petitioner filed appeal which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal, who while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 411, P.P.C. reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years' R.I. to one year's R.I., hence, this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements made by the prosecution witnesses suffer from infirmities such as material contradictions inasmuch as the witnesses namely, Muhammad Abbas, Muhammad Nazir and Ghulam Muhammad stated that the investigating Officer had come to the spot where the accused and the stolen property were produced before him whereas the Investigating Officer stated that the aforesaid witnesses had produced the stolen property and the petitioner before him at Lahore Mour Khanewal which is about 1‑1/2 kilometers from the place of occurrence, that the eye witnesses have stated that the Investigating Officer had completed proceedings on the spot, that the iron bars were not produced in the Court and got identified by the Investigating Officer at the time of recording of his evidence; that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in accordance with the guidelines by the superior Court and that since the petitioner is not a previous convict, the sentence of one year awarded to him by the appellate Court is also excessive one. Reliance has been placed on Anwar v. The State 1979 P Cr. L J Note 35 at p. 21.

3. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the petitioner was apprehended on the spot alongwith stolen iron bars; that the Courts below after having applied their conscious mind have believed recovery witnesses; that except for minor and immaterial contradictions and discrepancies here and there, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any major conflict between the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the stolen property had actually been produced in the Court and identified by the complainant at the time of his examination and as such, reproduction of the same at time of evidence of Investigating Officer would not be fatal to the prosecution case, that the impugned judgments do not suffer from illegality or material irregularity; that the impugned judgments are also not perverse and that the submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the judgments of the Courts below, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine.

S.G.D./M‑31/L Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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