Ss. 392/411--No identification parade whatsoever had taken place in this case which could be best corroborative evidence and for this prosecution has no good answer-

 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 4
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sohail Nasir, J.
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 576 of 2016, deiced on 6.10.2021.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----Ss. 435 & 439--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 392/411--Criminal revision--No identification parade whatsoever had taken place in this case which could be best corroborative evidence and for this prosecution has no good answer--Taking into consideration recovery of Rs. 10,000/-at instance of petitioner, same was also not proved by prosecution because currency was lying open in house of petitioner--It is enough to say about currency that it presumed to be under ownership of person from whom it is recovered unless there are special circumstances to indicate otherwise recovery of cash is not helpful to prosecution--Both Courts below without applying judicial mind wrongly arrived at a decision in favour of prosecution and Court feel no hesitation to hold that judgment of two Courts below cannot sustain--Revision allowed.

                                                                     [Para 8, 9, & 10] A, B & C

Syed Kamran Ali Advocate for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Mr. Muhammad Laeeq-ur-Rahman ADPP.

Date Hearing: 6.10.2021.

Order

Muhammad Rafique (petitioner) had faced trial in case FIR No. 267 recorded on 19.10.2015 under Sections 392/411, PPC at Police Station Kot Sultan District Layyah on the complaint of Ghulam Yasin (PW-11). On conclusion of trial vide a judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Magistrate Section 30 Layyah he was convicted under Section 392, PPC and sentenced to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He was also convicted and sentenced under Section 411, PPC to undergo two years RI.

2. Petitioner filed an appeal which was decided vide a judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Layyah. The judgment of the learned trial court was modified as the conviction of petitioner to the extent of Section 411, PPC was set aside.

3. Being aggrieved from the decisions of two Courts below, petitioner has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision.

4. HEARD

5. It was alleged in FIR by Ghulam Yasin (PW-11) that on 09.10.2015 at about 07:15 pm when he was going towards his house on motorbike and arrived near Scholar Science Academy, three unknown persons on motorbike came there from his back; two were muffled faced and one was exposed; on the Pistol point all they snatched Rs. 4,75,000/-from him and escaped.

6. Petitioner in this case was nominated on the basis of supplementary statement by complainant.

7. According to Ghulam Yasin (PW-11) after 5/6 days when he was present in Bazar he found a person present there who was one of the accused and he told his name Muhammad Rafique who also admitted about the occurrence. The statement of complainant on the face of it appears to be doubtful for the reason that no features whatsoever of any of the accused including petitioner were given in FIR so after few days to make a statement that he identified a person as one of the culprits is not acceptable. How was it possible that complainant then and there made interview with petitioner who not only disclosed his name but also admitted about the occurrence.

8. No identification parade whatsoever had taken place in this case which could be the best corroborative evidence and for this prosecution has no good answer.

9. Taking into consideration the recovery of Rs. 10,000/-at the instance of petitioner, the same was also not proved by prosecution because currency was lying open in the house of petitioner. It is enough to say about the currency that it presumed to be under the ownership of the person from whom it is recovered unless there are special circumstances to indicate otherwise hence recovery of cash is not helpful to prosecution.

10. Both the Courts below without applying judicial mind wrongly arrived at a decision in favour of prosecution and I feel no hesitation to hold that the judgment of two Courts below cannot sustain.

11. Resultantly this Criminal Revision is allowed. Impugned judgments of both the Courts below are set aside and petitioner is acquitted from the case. He was released on bail by this Court, therefore, his surety is discharged from terms and conditions of bail bonds.

(A.A.K.)          Revision allowed