Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 396 of 1986, decided on 11th February, 1987.

‑‑S_ 411‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Correctness and propriety of order‑‑Accused allegedly picking pocket of complainant‑‑Case property not produced in Court at time of examining witnesses‑‑Complainant denying allegedly stolen handkerchief as belonging to him‑‑All witnesses giving different versions of occurrence‑‑No witness stating to have seen accused removing handkerchief from pocket of complainant‑‑Prosecution, held, had not proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside in circumstances.‑‑[Recovery].

Irshad Husain Bhatti for Petitioner.

Mian Bashir Ahmad for the State.

Date of hearing: 11th February, 1987.

Muhammad Sultan alias Tedy petitioner was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000 vide judgment, dated 14‑7‑1985 of the Magistrate First Class, Lahore. He challenged his conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment, dated 6‑7‑1986. He has come up in revision to question the correctness and propriety of the aforesaid orders.

2. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at Railway Headquarters, Lahore. The facts narrated by Gulzar Ahmad complainant at the trial are that on 24‑7‑1984 at 3‑10 p.m. he was present with his cousin Aurangzeb. He had a handkerchief in his pocket containing Rs.7.50. He felt a jerk on his pocket. He turned round and saw Sultan petitioner standing close to him. A Havildar who was present there immediately apprehended the petitioner and recovered the money from him. The complainant then lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P.A. at Police Station Railway Police, Lahore.

3. To support its case the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Gulzar Ahmad complainant, Muhammad Khurshid, Manzur Ahmad and Agha Zawar Husain supported the prosecution version of the occurrence. Muhammad Gulzar P.W. 2 did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.

4. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against him. He examined one witness in defence who stated that the petitioner belongs to a good family.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case‑property was not produced in Court when the complainant and the Investigating Officer appeared in the witness‑box and the statements of the alleged eye‑witnesses suffer from material discrepancies which go to the root of the case. He submits that the petitioner is a rickshaw‑ driver by profession; P.W. Manzur Ahmad demanded lift on his rickshaw but he refused to oblige him resulting in an exchange of hot words, therefore, he was falsely implicated.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, submits that the eye‑witnesses had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner.

6. Gulzar Ahmad complainant was examined on 29‑9‑1984 and Investigating Officer Muhammad Karim on 30‑4‑1985. Perusal of their statements reveals that the case property was not produced in Court when they appeared for evidence. This omission represents an unsatisfactory aspect, of the prosecution case. In cross‑examination Gulzar Ahmad complainant admitted that the alleged stolen handkerchief did not belong, to him. The complainant's version is that when he felt a jerk on his pocket, he turned round and saw Sultan petitioner standing close to him when a Havildar suddenly apprehended him and recovered the money from him.' Muhammad Khurshid and Manzur. Ahmad stated that the petitioner rant outside from Reservation, Railway Headquarters, Lahore, with a handkerchief and he was apprehended when he was running away. At the trial the complainant did not state that the petitioner had started running after removing the handkerchief. His version was that he was standing close to him when he was apprehended. Agha Zawar Husain P.W. gave yeti another version saying that the petitioner came running and boarded a rickshaw but he was apprehended by two constables on duty. All the P.Ws. stated that they had not seen the petitioner removing the handkerchief from the pocket of the complainant. A suggestion was put to the Investigating Officer that the petitioner was falsely implicated as he' refused to give lift to the police constable. The suggestion was denied. He, however, admitted that the rickshaw of the petitioner was also taken into possession at the same time through memo. Exh. P.C. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and acquit him of the charge. He is on bail. He shall be discharged from his ball bond.

S.A./M‑142/L Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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