IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-18 of 2017
Appellant/Complainant: Qamaruddin son of Shah Murad Kalhoro through Mr.
Zafar Ali Malgani, Advocate.
Date of hearing: 16.02.2018.
Date of judgment: 23.02.2018.
-----------------------
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 09th March, 2017, whereby the private respondents were acquitted of the charge for an offence punishable u/s.395, 340 & 506/2 PPC, by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana.
The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant appeal as are narrated by the appellant/complainant in his direct complaint are that; on 25.06.2016, when he with his witnesses Shakeel Ahmed and Akeel Ahmed was sitting at his house. There came in front of his house a Vigo Car. Two persons in uniform came out of it and called him by saying that; he is wanted at police station. On their saying, as per complainant, he went and sat with them in their said Vigo Car. Therein were found sitting the private respondents/accused. They took him to their otaq. There they maltreated him, robbed him of Rs.20,000/- and mobile phone and kept him confined illegally and on 28.06.2016, there came police party and then took him to P.S Arija. There he was involved in a false case. On his release, he filed the instant direct complaint.
The appellant/complainant examined himself and both his above said witnesses in preliminary enquiry. It was brought on record. The private respondents/accused put their appearance before learned trial Court. They denied the charge and complainant in order to prove it examined himself and both of his above said witnesses and then closed the side.
The private respondents/accused in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the allegations leveled against them by the appellant/complainant by pleading their innocence, by stating that they have lodged FIR Crime No.18/2016, u/s.506/2,337-Hii, 504, 34 PPC of P.S Arija against the appellant, in that case he was arrested by police on 29.06.2016.
On evaluation of evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents/accused of the charge vide his judgment dated 9th March, 2017, which the appellant/complainant has impugned before this Court by way of instant acquittal appeal.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the complainant was able to prove his case against the private respondents/accused through cogent evidence. It was not considered by learned trial Court without any justification. By contending so, he sought for regular hearing of the instant appeal.
I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
The appellant and his witnesses have attempted to support the contents of their direct complaint but their version is not appearing to be transpiring confidence. It has come on record that the appellant/complainant once was “Hari” with private respondents/accused and he was involved in case by police at their instance. In that case, he was apprehended by the police but his apprehension was not being disclosed by the police. PW Shakeel Ahmed, filed an application before learned 2nd Civil Judge & J.M, Larkana, inter-alia praying therein that SHO P.S Arija to be directed to cause production of the appellant/complainant before his Court and he may ensure that no harm is caused to him in any way. No where in that application the private respondents/accused are named. Had they been actually involved in the incident as is alleged by the appellant/complainant then they would have certainly been named in that application by PW Shakeel Ahmed. The involvement of the private respondents/accused in the instant case by way of direct complaint which is filed by the appellant/complainant with delay of about more than one month, it is not explained plausibly. It is reflecting consultation. The filing of instant direct complaint on the part of appellant/complainant is appearing to be an act of retaliation on his part. In that situation, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents/accused by extending them the benefit of doubt by advancing very cogent reasons.
In view of above, the impugned judgment of acquittal is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant acquittal appeal, it is dismissed in limine.
S.Ashfaq