IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No.S-15 of 2012

Appellant                            :   Muhammad Ramzan s/o Muhammad Mithal  

By caste Soomro, through

          Mr.Shamsuddin N.Kubar, Advocate

State                                              :   Through Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G

Date of hearing                   :     10.12.2018                 

Date of decision                  :     10.12.2018                           

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J-. The appellant by way of instant criminal appeal has impugned judgment dated 11.01.2012, passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, whereby the appellant for an offence punishable under section 302 (b) r/w section 34 PPC has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as “Tazir” and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- to legal heirs of deceased Manzoor Ahmed.

2.                The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal appeal are that the appellant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Manzoor Ahmed Soomro, by causing him fire shot injuries, for that he was booked and reported upon by the police.

3.                At trial, the appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined PW-01 complainant Moula Dad, who produced FIR of the present case, PW-02 Mubarak, PW-03 Dildar, PW-04 Mashir Muneer Ahmed, PW-05 SIP Abdul Ghafoor Mirani (author of the FIR of the present case), PW-06 ASI Muhammad Malook (the official who arrested the appellant), PW-07 Medical Officer Dr.Ghulam Asghar, PW-08 Tapedar Abdul Jabbar, PW-09 PC Muhammad Saifal and then prosecution closed the side.

4.                The appellant during course of his statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.PC, denied the prosecution’s allegation by pleading innocence. Neither the appellant examined himself on oath, nor anyone in his defense.

5.                On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

6.                At the very outset, it was fairly stated by learned A.P.G for the State that the appellant has been prejudiced in his defence at trial on account of failure of the prosecution to examine Inspector Amanullah Sadhayo, being material witness of the incident. By contending so, he sought for remand of the matter to learned trial Court with direction to examine Inspector Amanullah Sadhayo and then to decide the case afresh in accordance with law.

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant was fair enough to contend that he would be having no objection for remand of the case provided learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the case afresh, within sixty days.

8.                 I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

9.                Admittedly, not only Inspector Amanullah Sadhayo who has conducted investigation of the case has not been examined but certain documents being essential for just decision of case have not been brought on record by the prosecution, in accordance with law, which obviously has prejudiced the appellant in his defense seriously. In these circumstances, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment is set-aside, with direction to learned trial Court to pass the same afresh after recording the evidence of Inspector Amanullah Sadhayo, the investigating officer of the case, after providing fair chance of hearing to both the parties.

10.              The instant criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                 JUDGE

--