IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. D- 14 of 2017.

Present: Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh.

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito.

Appellant: The State, through Mr. Khadim Hussain Khoharo, Addl. P.G.

Respondent: Imran Lashari, present in person.

Date of hearing: 03.05.2018.

Date of judgment: 03.05.2018.

J U D G M E N T

Amjad Ali Sahito, J-. This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (CNS), Jacobabad, in Special Case No.12 of 2014 Re; State v. Imran Lashari, arisen out of F.I.R No.98 of 2014 of Police Station City, Jacobabad, registered for offence punishable under Section 9 (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, whereby he has acquitted the accused/ respondent Imran Lashari by extending benefit of doubt. The State having aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed instant appeal through Prosecutor General Sindh.

2. Precisely, facts of prosecution case are that, on 30.08.2014 the appellant was apprehended by a police party headed by S.I.P Ali Anwar Brohi SHO of P.S City, Jacobabad, from Quetta road adjacent to Masjid-e-Aqsa and contraband Charas weighing 1100 grams (in shape of two pieces) was recovered from his possession.

3. We have heard learned counsel Addl. P.G. for the State and respondent in person and have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution at the trial.

4. Learned Addl. P.G. contended that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence according to principles of evaluating the evidence in criminal cases. He further contended that prosecution has produced trustworthy evidence in the trial Court but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and erroneously extended benefit of doubt in favour of accused/ respondent. He further contended that the prosecution had proved case beyond any shadow of doubt and the acquittal of the accused/ respondent has caused miscarriage of justice. He lastly contended that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the accused/ respondent may be convicted.

5. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that he is innocent and was falsely involved in the case by Jacobabad police.

6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence and found that the contradictions observed by the trial Court have been suitably highlighted in his judgment with regard to material points in respect of happening of the incident. Moreover, witnesses examined at trial by prosecution belong to police department and no independent person has been examined, though the alleged recovery is said to have taken place on road near a Masjid, where presence of independent persons could not be denied and this fact has also been admitted by PW PC Munir Ahmed by deposing in his cross-examination that house and shops are also situated near place of incident. Perusal of evidence reflects that, it is contradictory in nature. The statement of complainant SIP Ali Anwar Brohi is not only self-contradictory but it is also contradicted by mashir/ witness PC Munir Ahmed. In the first information report the complainant has mentioned that at the time of arrest and recovery and preparation of mashirnama he searched for private persons to act as mashir, but none was found at the spot, however in his cross-examination complainant has admitted that he had not called any private person from Masjid Aqsa, nor from locality, and that private people were available. In this regard, the PW Munir Ahmed has contradicted the complainant by deposing that SHO had called the private persons to act as mashirs but they refused. Perusal of record further shows that the alleged recovery of contraband Charas is said to have effected on 30.8.2014, and as per report of Chemical Examiner, it was received in the laboratory for analysis on 02.09.2014. There is delay of three days in sending the samples to the chemical analyzer; and nowhere it is explained that during span of such time the contraband Charas remained with whom, therefore, report of chemical analyzer is not useful for the prosecution.

7. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly come to a conclusion that the prosecution could not establish the case against the respondent/ accused and rightly acquitted accused by extending him benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment is well founded and well-reasoned, based on proper appraisal of the evidence and thus it calls for no interference. Even otherwise, it is well-settled by the Superior Courts that the acquittal recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction, would not be disturbed until there is any misreading or non-reading of the evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice, which, as elaborated above, has not been noticed here. Consequently, there appeared no substance at all in the present appeal, as such it was dismissed accordingly by short Order dated 03.05.2018, and these are the reasons for the same.

JUDGE