IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Rev. Appln. No. S- 28 of 2016
Applicants: Sahib,
Rahib, Munir, Saleh, Qurban alias Eido, Baharo, Sallar, Sulleman, Sultan (now
died) Attur, Rano and Farooque, through Mr. Noushad Ali Taggar, Advocate
Respondent: The
State, through Syed Sardar Ali Shah,
Deputy Prosecutor General
Complainant: Haji Muhammad Mithal, through
Mr. Mir Nawaz Kalhoro, Advocate
Date of
hearing: 22.04.2019
Date of
decision: 22.04.2019
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is
alleged that the applicants after having formed an unlawful assembly and in
prosecution of their common object by using criminal force set the wheat crop
of complainant Haji Muhammad Paryal on fire and then went away by making aerial
firing and maltreating the complainant and his witnesses, for that they were
booked and reported upon by the police.
2. On conclusion of the trial,
the applicants were convicted and sentenced to various terms by learned trial
Magistrate by way of judgment dated 29.01.2016 which they impugned by way of
filing an appeal, it was dismissed by learned appellate Court vide judgment
dated 15.02.2016 which they have impugned before this Court by way of instant
Criminal Revision Application.
3. It is contended by learned
counsel for the applicants that they being innocent have been involved in this
case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy their dispute with
the over landed property, the evidence which the prosecution produced in its
case being inconsistent and unreliable has been believed by learned trial
Magistrate and appellate Court without lawful justification. By contending so,
he sought for acquittal of the applicants.
4. Learned DPG for the State
record no objection to the acquittal of the applicants while learned counsel
for the complainant sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Revision
application by supporting the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate and
appellate Court.
5. I have considered the above
arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been
lodged with delay of three hours, such delay could not be overlooked, the
complainant and his witnesses are related inter se, mashir Khaliq Dino being
resident of Mithiani has not been able to justify his availability at the place
of incident, there is general allegation, the parties admittedly are disputed
over landed property. In that situation, it could be concluded safely that the
prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the applicants beyond
shadow of doubt.
7. In case of Mehmood Ahmed & others vs. the State & another (1995 SCMR-127),
it was observed by the Hon’ble Court
that;
“Delay of two hours in lodging the FIR in the
particular circumstances of the case had assumed great significance as the same
could be attributed to consultation, taking instructions and calculatedly
preparing the report keeping the names of the accused open for roping in such
persons whom ultimately the prosecution might wish to implicate”.
8. In case of Tarique Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345),
it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;
“For giving benefit of doubt to an accused it
is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt- if a
simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt
of the accused, then he will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of
grace and concession but as a matter of right.”
9. For what has been discussed
above, the judgments of learned trial Magistrate and appellate Court are
set-aside. Consequently, the applicants are acquitted of the offence for which
they were charged, tried and convicted, they are present in Court on bail
(except Sultan, who now has died) their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
are discharged.
10. Instant Criminal Revision Application
stands disposed of in above terms.
Judge
ARBROHI