392. Punishment for robbery.--Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which [shall not be less than three years nor more than] ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the Highway [.....] the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
COMMENTARY
1. Scope and extent. Mere arrest on spot. Not sufficient. NLR 1989 TD 86. Identification. Court must look for some independent evidence. 1991 PCr.LJ 1145. Identification not a legal requirement. 1991 PCr.LJ 817. Identification delayed. 1987 MLD 1003. Physical features not given in FIR. 1988 PCr.LJ 2287. Two FIRs. Amalgamation and conviction on the basis of evidence of the same set of witnesses. Material irregularity. 1990 PCr.LJ 1193; 1981 SCMR 435; 1984 PCr.LJ 3102. Violation of Ss. 342 and 364 Cr.P.C. Vitiates trial. 1990 MLD 1158. Perception of witness. 1987 PCr.LJ 542. Non-production of case property. PLD 1992 Kar. 140. Case rested on identification and recovery. PLD 1990 FSC 38.
Confessional statement for being relied upon should not only be true, voluntary and believable but should be without fear, favour or any inducement. 2005 PSC (Crl.) 705(a).
Recovered weapon not produced before Trial Court/Could not be considered as corroborative piece of evidence. 2005 P.Cr.R. (Lah) 1759 (b) = 2005 LN (Lah.) 1557 (b).
2. Identification. Witness of identification identified accused unhesitatingly and without any reservation. No mala fide intent or motive found on the part of complainant to falsely implicate accused. Appeal against conviction meritless. 2002 PCr.LJ 1496. None of the accused identified by anybody at the spot due to their muffled faces. Recovery of pistol, live bullets and wrist watch not connecting accused with the crime as nobody during the trial claimed them. Judicial confession though retracted does not by itself absolve him of the confessed guilt. No corroboration available on record. Acquittal ordered. [2004 PCr.LJ 677] Prosecution failing to hold identification parade to fix up identity of accused. Essential where names of accused not provid in FIR. Case would be of further inquiry entitling admission of accused on bail. [2004 PCr.LJ 1659] Identification parade was immaterial if the identification of accused person was proved by other convincing evidence. PLD 2006 SC 519.
3. Non-examination of complainant. Not fatal. In the presence of eye witnesses deposing against the accused. 2005 PCr.LJ 241.
4. FIR against un-known persons. Disclosure made by co-accused after his arrest. Not a substantive evidence. Accused acquitted. 2001 PCr.LJ 86. Confession of co-accused relevant under Art. 43, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order alone cannot warrant conviction. 2001 PCr.LJ 86. No private Mashirs. Statement recorded u/S. 161 not produced. Acquitted. 2001 PCr.LJ 47.
Accused identified in identification parade. Recovery of golden ornaments and household were effected from accused persons and same was verified by complainant and his wife. Ocular account was fully corroborated by recovery effected from accused persons. No previous background of enmity existed between parties. No possibility of false implication of accused existed. No evidence was on record which could show that eye-witnesses had deposed falsely against accused. Prosecution had proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt. No mitigating circumstance. Conviction and sentence maintained. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1062.
Case against accused was of no evidence and he had been convicted only on surmises and conjectures on basis of statement of so-called Tracker who was neither an Expert in tracking, nor did he take moulds for comparison with footprints of accused. Area admittedly was stoney where footprints were missing at some place and up to place here traced footprints were found there were several houses. Trial Court had failed to apply its judicial mind to facts of case and had proceeded in manner which was violative of principles governing safe administration of criminal justice. PLJ 2002 FSC 1.
Prosecution case had established by ocular account and was corroborated by recovery. No previous criminal history, therefore lenient view was being taken and sentence was reduced to that of having been already undergone. PLJ 2005 Cr.C (Lahore) 338.
None of prosecution witnesses stated that accused were sharing common intention to commit offence and acts done by all accused persons were in furtherance of their common intention. Appellant could not have been convicted u/S. 392 PPC for committing offence of robbery if prosecution evidence in totality was believed even then, acts allegedly committed by appellants would not render them vicariously liable for acts done by other accused person. PLJ 2005 FSC 100.
If Court was satisfied that statements made by eye-witnesses were natural, unbiased, disinterested one, then minor technicalities and discrepancies can be ignored. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 462.
Recovery of alleged articles had not been effected. Prosecution case having fully been established by ocular account and corroborated by recovery memo. supported by Investigating Officer, accused was justified in not challenging his conviction. Parties had compromised during trial and accused had no previous criminal history. Taking lenient view, sentence of accused was reduced to that having been already undergone by him and he was released. 2005 YLR 1568.
Testimony of complainant, was not only confidence-inspiring, but it found corroboration from medical evidence as well. Confessional statements of accused were also in conformity with the same. Conviction could be recorded on basis of retracted confession alone, particularly against its maker, if same was found voluntary and true and corroboration thereof was sought for as a matter of prudence only. Identification of accused at the test, as well as in the Court, had lent further support to prosecution version. There was no rule that conviction could not be recorded on the basis of testimony of a single witness. Only requirement was that it should be reliable and confidence-inspiring. Complainant neither had any enmity with accused nor he had any motive to falsely implicate them, rather he himself was victim of the crime. Since offence of robbery was an aggravated form of theft or extortion, in all robbery cases there was either theft or extortion. Complainant was not only overpowered by accused, but was tied with a tree and vehicle in question was thereafter snatched from him and in doing so, force was applied. Case was that of robbery. 2006 PCr.LJ 235.
No comments:
Post a Comment