IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No.S-16 of 2017

Appellant              :                 Taj Muhammad s/o Haji Hazoor Bux Mugheri            Through Mr.Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro,

Advocate

State                              :                  Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G

Date of hearing    :                 13.12.2018          

Date of decision  :                  13.12.2018                   

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J-.The appellant by way of instant criminal appeal has impugned judgment dated 01.02.2017, passed by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, whereby the appellant for an offence punishable u/s 24 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo S.I for two months with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC.

2.                The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant appeal are that the police party of P.S, Taluka, led by ASI Muhammad Hanif while on patrolling when reached at Qamber road, there came to know through spy information that the appellant absconding in FIR Crime No.01/2014 of P.S Qamber, is sitting under straw-shed at Andhe-ji-Mori. On such information, he with his police party proceeded to the pointed place, there apprehended the appellant and on search from him allegedly secured an unlicensed T.T pistol with magazine containing two live bullets, for that the appellant was booked and reported upon.             

3.                At trial, the appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined complainant ASI Muhammad Hanif and PW Mashir/PC Noor Muhammad and then closed the side.

4.                The appellant in his statement recorded u/s 342 Cr.PC denied the prosecutions’ allegation by pleading innocence. He did not examine any one in his defence or himself on oath.  

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

6.                It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police and he has been convicted by learned trial Court on the basis of improper assessment of evidence, which is not transpiring confidence. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant.   

7.                Learned A.P.G for the State sought for dismissal of the instant criminal appeal by supporting the impugned judgment.

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

9.                It was stated by complainant ASI Muhammad Hanif and Mashir/PC Noor Muhammad that on 10.01.2014, they with rest of the police personnel were conducting patrol, under roznamcha entry No.15, of P.S Taluka. Such roznamcha entry, significantly they have failed to produce. Its non-production without any lawful justification has made their version that they were conducting patrol under roznamcha entry No.15, of P.S Taluka to be doubtful. It was further stated by them that they when reached at Qamber road, there they came to know through spy information that the appellant absconding in FIR Crime No.01/2014 of P.S Taluka, is sitting under the straw-shed by the side of “Andhe-ji-Mori”. On that they proceeded to the pointed place. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that they proceeded to the pointed place on information, then they were under lawful obligation to have associated with them an independent person to witness the possible arrest and recovery. It was not done by them for no obvious reason, which has rendered their version that they proceeded to the place of incident on information, to be doubtful one. It was further stated by them that they reached at the place of incident; there they found the appellant sitting with plaster on his legs and was unable to move, he was apprehended and from him was secured an unlicensed T.T pistol with magazine containing two live bullets. If the appellant was unable to move with plaster on his legs, then there was hardly a need for him to have kept with him an unlicensed pistol to be secured by the complainant, which has made the alleged recovery of unlicensed pistol from the appellant to be doubtful one. It was further stated by them that the appellant with the recovery so made was then taken to P.S Taluka, there the appellant was booked in the case formally. The evidence so produced by the prosecution on account of omissions, as discussed above, has rendered the case of prosecution against the appellant to be doubtful one.

10.              In case of Faheem Ahmed Farooqui Vs. The State (2008 SCMR-1572), it is held that;

“single infirmity creating reasonable doubt regarding truth of the charge makes the whole case doubtful.

11.              In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged, tried and convicted by learned trial Court. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if he is found to be in custody in the present case.

                   The instant criminal appeal is disposed of in above terms.

                                                                                                    JUDGE