IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Appeal No.S-110 of 2019
Appellant : Qadeer Ahmed s/o Haji Mir Muhammad Jagirani,
Through Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate
The State : Through Mr.Muhammad Noonari, D.P.G
Date of hearing : 03.09.2020
Date of decision : 03.09.2020
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant by way of instant appeal has impugned judgment dated 14.11.2019, passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Larkana, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under;
“I therefore, convict accused for offence u/s.409 PPC r/w Sec: 5(2) Act-II of 1947 and sentenced him to suffer R.I Ten (10) years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two Lacs rupees), in case of none payment of fine, he shall suffer R.I 01 (one) year more. Accused is further convicted for offence punishable u/s.471 PPC r/w Sec: 5(2) Act-II of 1947 and sentenced him to suffer R.I Seven (07) years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lac rupees), in case of non-payment of fine he shall suffer R.I for Six(06) months more. Accused is present on bail, he is taken into custody and remanded to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC is extended to the accused”.
2. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant appeal are that an application was moved with Anti-Corruption at Larkana by one Ghulam Yasin alleging therein the appellant has got himself appointed a police constable on the basis of fake/forged academic certificates. After due enquiry, the case was registered against the appellant and on the basis of investigation, the appellant was challaned by the police before the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Larkana.
3. At trial, the appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined in all seven witnesses and then close its side.
4. The appellant in his statement recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution’s allegation by pleading innocence. He did not examine himself on oath nor anyone in his defence. However, after his statement under section 342 Cr.PC, the appellant produced certain documents by way of statement to prove his innocence.
5. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court found the appellant guilty for the above said offence and then convicted and sentenced him, as is detailed above, by way of impugned judgment.
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; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about nine hours and the evidence which the prosecution has adduced at trial Court was not enough to establish the offence alleged against the appellant. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant. In support of his contentions, he relied upon case of Jamil alias Jamal Vs. The State (1994 MLD-1697).
7. Learned D.P.G for the State did not support the impugned judgment.
8. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
9. The appellant as per PW Muhammad Siddique Shah was appointed as police constable on “Deceased Quota”. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about nine years. No plausible explanation to such delay has been offered by the prosecution. PW Ghulam Yasin at whose instance, the FIR of the present is alleged to have been registered has not supported the case of prosecution by stating that someone else has moved application against the applicant with his fake signature. PW Qamar Khalid who was called and examined by the prosecution to prove that the matriculation certificate which the appellant is having is fake and bogus, was fair enough to admit that the letter whereby the matriculation certificate of the appellant was declared to be fake and bogus, was not signed by him. Who has signed such letter? Neither his name is declared in the challan sheet even nor he has been examined by the prosecution, for no obvious reason, therefore, no much reliance could be placed upon such letter. In these circumstances, it would be safe to conclude that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt.
10. In the case of Tariq Pervez Vs. The State (1993 SCMR-1345), it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court that;
“for giving him benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right”.
11. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the impugned judgment is set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged, tried and convicted by the learned trial Court and he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other custody case.
12. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.
J U D G E
-