fIN THE COURT OF IMRAN ALI JAFFERY MAGISTRATE
1ST CLASS, SHAHPUR DISTRICT SARGODHA.
The State Versus Shaukat Hayat etc
Case FIR No.211 dated 05.08.2011 u/s
379 PPC P.S. Jhawrian.
Criminal Case No. 119T/2017.
Date of Decision…..08.11.2017.
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that
complainant is resident of mauza Beerbal Sharif and
cultivates land, that complainant had installed a peter
engine worth Rs.36,000/- on his land measuring 9 kanals and
16 marlas. About six months ago, peter engine of the
complainant was stolen. On search, witnesss Muhammad
Ramzan and Muhammad Nawaz had told him that accused
persons Muhammad Bakhsh, Muhammad Nawaz, Shaukat
Hayat s/o Dost Muhammad, Muhammad Riaz s/o Muhammad
Hayat, Muhammad Riaz s/o Muhammad Ramzan and
Shaukat Hayat s/o Syed Muhammad had stolen his peter
engine. On demand of complainant, the said accused
persons had promised to return the stolen peter engine but
they flatly refused later on. Hence, this prosecution case.
2. FIR against the accused persons was accordingly
got lodged on 05.08.2011. Cancellation report was
submitted by the police on 16.01.2013 which was disagreed
by the then learned area magistrate concerned and the
same was treated as report u/s 173 Cr.P.C in which accused
persons were declared guilty after thorough investigation.
Charge against the accused persons was framed on
25.04.2013 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for
trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was summoned.
, 2
The State Versus Shaukat Hayat etc
3. In order to prove its case prosecution produced
following witnesses for recording of their statements:-
PW-1: Rabnawaz s/o Ghulam Muhammad (complainant
of the case),
PW-2: Muhammad Ramzan s/o Ghulam Muhammad
(witness),
PW-3: Sattar Gull SI (I.O of the case)
PW-4: Muneer Ahmad ASI (scriber of the FIR).
PW-5: Rizwan 1990/C (recovery witness).
4 It is pertinent to mention here that PW Muhammad
Nawaz was given up by the learned ADPP due to his
connivance with the accused persons.
5 Prosecution has also produced documentary
evidence, i.e. complaint as Ex.P-A, site plan of alleged place
of occurrence as Ex.P-B, recovery memo of peter engine as
Ex.P-C, FIR as Ex.P-D and closed its evidence.
6. In statement under section 342 Cr.P.C, accused
persons denied the story of the complainant as narrated in
the complaint and stated that due to rivalry of complainant,
PWs deposed falsely.
7. Accused persons has refused to appear under
section 340 (2) Cr.P.C as witness and also denied to
produce defense evidence.
8 While appearing as PW-1, complainant
deposed that he owns land measuring 9 kanals and 16
marlas in mauza Beerbal Sharif on which he had installed a
peter engine worth Rs.36,000/- that was stolen about four
years ago, witnesss Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad
Nawaz had told him that accused persons Muhammad
Bakhsh, Muhammad Nawaz, Shaukat Hayat s/o Dost
1ST CLASS, SHAHPUR DISTRICT SARGODHA.
The State Versus Shaukat Hayat etc
Case FIR No.211 dated 05.08.2011 u/s
379 PPC P.S. Jhawrian.
Criminal Case No. 119T/2017.
Date of Decision…..08.11.2017.
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that
complainant is resident of mauza Beerbal Sharif and
cultivates land, that complainant had installed a peter
engine worth Rs.36,000/- on his land measuring 9 kanals and
16 marlas. About six months ago, peter engine of the
complainant was stolen. On search, witnesss Muhammad
Ramzan and Muhammad Nawaz had told him that accused
persons Muhammad Bakhsh, Muhammad Nawaz, Shaukat
Hayat s/o Dost Muhammad, Muhammad Riaz s/o Muhammad
Hayat, Muhammad Riaz s/o Muhammad Ramzan and
Shaukat Hayat s/o Syed Muhammad had stolen his peter
engine. On demand of complainant, the said accused
persons had promised to return the stolen peter engine but
they flatly refused later on. Hence, this prosecution case.
2. FIR against the accused persons was accordingly
got lodged on 05.08.2011. Cancellation report was
submitted by the police on 16.01.2013 which was disagreed
by the then learned area magistrate concerned and the
same was treated as report u/s 173 Cr.P.C in which accused
persons were declared guilty after thorough investigation.
Charge against the accused persons was framed on
25.04.2013 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for
trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was summoned.
, 2
The State Versus Shaukat Hayat etc
3. In order to prove its case prosecution produced
following witnesses for recording of their statements:-
PW-1: Rabnawaz s/o Ghulam Muhammad (complainant
of the case),
PW-2: Muhammad Ramzan s/o Ghulam Muhammad
(witness),
PW-3: Sattar Gull SI (I.O of the case)
PW-4: Muneer Ahmad ASI (scriber of the FIR).
PW-5: Rizwan 1990/C (recovery witness).
4 It is pertinent to mention here that PW Muhammad
Nawaz was given up by the learned ADPP due to his
connivance with the accused persons.
5 Prosecution has also produced documentary
evidence, i.e. complaint as Ex.P-A, site plan of alleged place
of occurrence as Ex.P-B, recovery memo of peter engine as
Ex.P-C, FIR as Ex.P-D and closed its evidence.
6. In statement under section 342 Cr.P.C, accused
persons denied the story of the complainant as narrated in
the complaint and stated that due to rivalry of complainant,
PWs deposed falsely.
7. Accused persons has refused to appear under
section 340 (2) Cr.P.C as witness and also denied to
produce defense evidence.
8 While appearing as PW-1, complainant
deposed that he owns land measuring 9 kanals and 16
marlas in mauza Beerbal Sharif on which he had installed a
peter engine worth Rs.36,000/- that was stolen about four
years ago, witnesss Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad
Nawaz had told him that accused persons Muhammad
Bakhsh, Muhammad Nawaz, Shaukat Hayat s/o Dost
