Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS Respondent: THE STATENemo,Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State.
1992 P Cr
1992 P Cr. L J 2530
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Amir Malik, J
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Cr. Revision No.225 of 1985, heard oh 15thJune, 1992.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 411‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Statements of recovery witnesses were contradictory‑‑‑Possibility of the case having been cooked up against accused could not be ruled out‑‑‑Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State.
Date of hearing: 1.5th June, 1992.
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Nawaz petitioner was convicted on 14‑2‑1985 for an offence under section 411, P.P.C. by Magistrate Section 30, Jhang and sentenced to two years' R.I. His appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge on 20‑4‑1985, hence the present revision petition.
2. Azam complainant (P.W.1) lodged the F.I.R. on 31‑12‑1982 to the effect that his golden ornaments and clothes etc. had been stolen from his house at night 1‑1/2 months before lodging the F.I.R.
3. Shafiq‑ur‑Rehman (P.W.8) investigated the case. He arrested the petitioner on 12‑1‑1983 in a Nakabandi in presence of Police Razakar Muhammad Ramzan and Police Constable Muhammad Hayat (P.W.7 and P.W.6) and from the bundle carried by the petitioner ornaments of Azam were recovered. It is also in the F.I.R. that some of the ornaments were privately returned by the petitioner to the complainant and these too were produced by the complainant before the A.S.I.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not entered appearance,
5. Learned counsel for the State has been heard and record gone through with his help. Exh.P.B. is the recovery memo dated 31‑12‑1982, according to which the golden ornaments privately returned by the petitioner to the complainant were taken into possession by the A.S.I. in presence of Haq Nawaz and Sher Ali (P.W.3 and P.W.4). Both the witnesses are the first cousins of the complainant. According to the statement of the complainant the golden ornaments were privately returned while the silver ornaments were refused to be returned. Silver ornaments were taken into possession by the A.S.I. on 12‑1‑1983 vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C. This is witnessed by Muhammad Hayat Constable and Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.6 and P.W.7). The statements of both are contradictory. According to Muhammad Hayat, Muhammad Ramzan 'had visited the police station and from there they had reached the spot where the petitioner was apprehended. The statement of Muhammad Ramzan is that he was just present when the police reached and caught hold of a person whom he could not identify and from him a few ornaments were recovered. There is constant suggestion that over, the dispute of the hand of a girl the petitioner had been falsely involved. It is admitted by the complainant that the petitioner is his cousin's son and lives adjacent to the complainant. Hence the possibility that the case was cooked up cannot be ruled out.
6. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and conviction and sentence set aside. The petitioner is on bail and stands discharged of the bail bond.
N.H.Q./M‑465/L Revision petition accepted.