Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WAHID BAKHSHPotitioncr VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: WAHID BAKHSHPotitioncr vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No, 275 of 1982 Date of Judgment:1989-06-12 Reported As: 1989 P Cr. L J 2257 Result: Revision accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' The facts leading to this revision, briefly, arc that Wahid Bakhsh petitioner was tried under section 380/411, P.P.C. By Magistrate ls,t Class, Rajanpur. 2. To prove its case, prosecution produced four witnesses. Adit Khan P.W.1 claims to have seen Wahid Bakhsh petitioner taking away his two bullocks after having stolen the same from his house. Salam P.W.2 and Faiz Muhammad P.W.3 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Supporting the statement of the complainant they stated that they had seen the petitioner taking away the two bullocks of the complainant and on seeing them he ran away leaving the bullocks there. After the registration of the case, the two bullocks were produced before Abdul Hamid S.I./S.H.O. P.Vv'.4 by the complainant who took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. 3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner denied the charges. In defence, he produced two witnesses. 4. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 and in default thereof 3 months' R.I. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur but the sentence was reduced from two years' R.I. To six monhts' R.I. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two stolen bullocks of the complainant were not produced in the Court and were not identified as stolen property at the time of their evidence, so prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded and rightly so. 6. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the stolen property having not been identified by the complainant and the eye-witnesses in the Court A at the time of their evidence, the
---
## Page 2
conviction of the petitioner recorded under section 411, P.P.C. Cannot be sustained. 7. For what has been said above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bonds.