ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Rev. Appln. No.D- 88 of 2009

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of main case

09.4.2019

None present for the Applicant

None for the private respondents

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Criminal Revision Application are that the private respondent allegedly with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object not only committed Qatl-e-amd of Pir Bux by causing him fireshot injuries but caused fire shot injuries to Mst. Sughran and Mst. Suhni, wit intention to commit their murders, for that he was booked and reported upon by the police to face trial.

2. On conclusion of the trial, the private respondent was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur vide his judgment dated 19.05.2009, as under;

“He is convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and also convicted u/s 324 PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) in default to suffer S.I for six months)

3. The accused by way of an appeal and complainant by way of instant Criminal Revision Application challenged the above said judgment.

4. Needless to say that accused sought for his acquittal while the complainant sought for enhancement of the sentence so awarded to the accused.

5. Subsequently, the appeal so filed by the appellant was dismissed as not pressed on 07.03.2019 while the instant Criminal Revision Application was allowed to remain on the file without any active progress. It was, therefore, decided to dispose of the same on merits with the assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General.

6. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Revision Application by supporting the impugned judgment by stating that the accused was adequately punished by learned trial Court.

7. We have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

8. As per learned trial Judge in his judgment Mst. Sughran and Mst. Suhni who happened to be star witnesses of the incident have not implicated the private respondent and this perhaps was the reason which prevented with the learned trial Judge from awarding the death sentence to the private respondent. In these circumstances, there appears no justification to modify the sentence of ‘imprisonment for life’ to that of ‘death’.

9. Consequent upon above discussion, the instant Criminal Revision Application fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

Judge

ARBROHI