IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Jail Appeal No.  S-  116 of 2010.

Present:

                                                            Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar.

Sikander Teghani.                                                              ……...Appellant.

Versus

The State.                                                                              .....…..Respondent.

Mr. Shamasuddin Abbasi, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Abdullah Soomro, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shahzado Saleem, A.P.G.

Date of hearing:                              29.9.2015.

Date of Judgment:                          29.9.2015.

J U D G M E N T

Salahuddin Panhwar, J-. Through instant appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 5^th August, 2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in Sessions case No.874/2008, (St. Vs. Sikander Teghani), culminating from F.I.R No.54/2007 of P.S  City, Jacobabad.

            Precisely relevant facts are that, appellant and absconding accused Asghar in furtherance of their common intention committed qatl-e-amd of Ali Nawaz by causing fire shot injuries, a clerk in post office, Jacobabad, while he was discharging his duty there, the present accused was apprehended soon after the incident by police party on duty and from him secured a crime weapon while co-accused Asghar Ali made his escape good, for that they were booked and challaned.

            After framing of charge against appellant; the prosecution in order to prove its case examined H.C Arbab Ali, who produced attested copy of mashirnama of arrest and recovery, mashirnama whereby the T.T pistol  secured from appellant was  sealed. The corpse bearer PC Muhammad Sharif. Mashir Mehboob Ali, who produced mashirnama of examination of dead body of deceased Ali Nawaz, mashirnama of place of incident and inquest report on the dead body of deceased. SIP Mansoor Ali, who produced attested copy of F.I.R of this case. P.W Rasool Bux, P.W Noor Muhammad, Dr. Bashir Ahmed, who produced attested photocopy of postmortem report on the dead body of deceased Ali Nawaz. Complainant Muhammad Ameen, P.W Faiz Muhammad, P.W Illahi Bux were given up, thereafter PW Ghulam Akbar, SIP Abdul Ghaffar, SIP Sultan Ahmed were examined. SIP Sultan Ahmed produced attested copy of F.I.R No.55/2007, relating to police encounter, attested copy of F.I.R No.56/2007 relating to recovery of T.T pistol from appellant. Thereafter side of prosecution was closed. 

            The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C, in which he has denied the allegations leveled against him and claimed to be innocent. He neither reexamined himself on oath nor examined any witness in defence.

            Learned counsel for the appellant, inter-alia, contended that appellant __________________________

            Learned A.P.G. contends that instant case is based on ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence. All are in conformity; defence counsel failed to cause any dent in prosecution case, hence instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

            Heard parties and perused the record coupled with impugned judgment.

            It is surfaced that, complainant Muhammad Ameen and PW Khair Muhammad during course of their examination before the trial Court have inter-alia stated that on 16.4.2007 they and P.W Illahi Bux went to have a meeting with Ali Nawaz at post office, Jacobabad, there at about 12.00 noon, present appellant and absconding accused Asghar came; they by raising hakals fired at Ali Nawaz, who by sustaining those fires fell down on the ground and then both of the said accused ran away, they were followed by them, in the meanwhile there came police party consisting of H.C Arbab and PC Sharbat on a motorcycle they were informed about the incident, who followed the culprits and then they took Ali Nawaz to civil hospital Jacobabad but he died at the main gate of hospital, the matter then was reported to police. Both the witnesses inspite of lengthy cross-examination have stood by their version on all material points with regard to death of deceased Ali Nawaz at the hands of present and absconding accused with means of fire shot injuries; their version could not be disbelieved only for a assertion that they were having no reason to be present in post office at the time of incident, their availability at the place of incident at the time of incident is proved of the evidence of PW H.C Arbab (who came there on hearing fire shot reports), P.W Rasool Bux, P.W Noor Muhammad and P.W Ghulam Akbar, co-employees with deceased Ali Nawaz at post office Jacobabad. Not only this, but H.C Arbab on hearing fire shot reports and on disclosure of the incident to him by the complainant and his witnesses followed the appellant and absconding accused; he in doing so was joined by police party of PS City Jacobabad consisting of SIP Sultan Ahmed Mangi and others and after due encounter the appellant was apprehended and from him one unlicensed T.T pistol was secured, while other accused made his escape good. In these premises, there was hardly a need with the prosecution to have subjected the present appellant to identification parade. It is true that, the report of ballistic expert has not been produced on record but the reason for its non production was that the same was set on fire by provoked mob on death of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto with rest of the record of the Court. It is true that during course of apprehension of the present appellant by PW SIP Sultan Ahmed Mangi and PW H.C Arbab Ali, one passerby namely Faiz Muhammad sustained fire shot injury. No doubt he has not been examined by the prosecution in the present case but this omission is not enough to fail the case of prosecution for the reason that he was not a witness of prosecution in the present case, but a witness in a case of the prosecution relating to police encounter, as a result whereof the present appellant was apprehended by the police party. It is true that, there is no motive of the incident is disclosed. No disclosure of the motive in no case could absolve the present accused of the liability of the incident, which even otherwise the prosecution has been able to prove against him through cogent evidence. 

            Evidence of PW PC Muhammad Sharif Golo is to the extent that he delivered the dead body of deceased to medical officer for postmortem. Evidence of PW SIP Mansoor Ahmed is to the extent that he recorded F.I.R of present case, while evidence of SIP Abdul Ghaffar is to the extent of investigation of the present case, same could not be disbelieved only for simple allegation that it was conducted dishonestly.

            The plea of innocence which the appellant has taken at the time of trial and in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C deserve to be ignored as an after thought in the circumstances of the case.

            The over all discussion involves a conclusion that the appellant alongwith absconding accused in furtherance of his common intention has committed qatl-e-amd of deceased Ali Nawaz by causing him fire shot injury as is alleged by the prosecution.

            Accordingly, instant appeal was dismissed by short Order dated 29.9.2015. These are the detailed reasons.

Dated:

                                                                                      Judge