ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

C.P.No.D-371 of 2020

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Present:

Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah

· For orders on MA No.1703/2020 (U/A).

· For orders on office objection “A”.

· For orders on MA No.1704/2020 (E/A).

· For hearing of main case.

29.09.2020.

Mr. Muzafar Ali Wadhio, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH-J; The petitioner by way of instant Constitutional Petition has prayed for re-investigation of case outcome of FIR Crime No.34/2019, u/s.302, 404, 337-A(ii), 109, 34 PPC of P.S Kanga, District Larkana.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner at the time of incident was at Hyderabad and he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its grudge with him over leadership of “Panchayat”. By contending so, he prayed for issuance of direction against the respondents to re-investigate the case against the petitioner through an honest police officer.

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

4. The perusal of record reveals that the petitioner is named in FIR with allegation that he with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, committed Qatl-e-Amd of Sajjan, by causing him fire shot injuries. One of injury sustained by the deceased is attributed to the petitioner specifically. The challan of the case has been submitted by the police on the basis of conclusion formed by Joint Investigation Team, which was reconstituted obviously at the instance of co-accused Srichand. The petitioner perhaps feeling himself dis-satisfied with the conclusion formed by Joint Investigation Team has come before this Court for direction against the respondents to order for re-investigation of case only to determine his plea of “Alibi”. If the petitioner is having a feeling that he is involved in said case falsely by the police at the instance of complainant party, then he could prove his innocence adequately and efficaciously by putting his defence before the learned trial Court which is seized of the matter, by giving an end to his willful absconsion. The re-investigation of the case in the circumstances could hardly be justified at the cost of trial.

5. In case of Bahadur Khan Vs. Muhammad Azam and 02 others (2006 SCMR-373), it has been observed by the Honourable Apex Court that;

“This Court in the case of Riaz Hussain and another v. The State while, 1986 SCMR-1934 seizen of the case relating to criminal appeal has held that the system of reinvestigation in criminal cases is a recent innovation which is always taken up at the instance of influential people and favourable reports obtained which in no way assist the Courts in coming to a correct conclusion, had created more complications to the Court administering the justice, therefore, expressed its disapproval of this system altogether and; successive investigation of the case, as rightly observed by the learned High Court that it only retards the administration of justice instead of providing any assistance thereto”.

6. Prima facie, the petitioner has failed to make out a clear case of infringement of his rights, which is sufficient for dismissal of the instant Constitutional Petition, it is dismissed in limine, alongwith listed applications.

J U D G E