IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Criminal Jail Appeal No. S –223 of 2019

Appellant : Saeed S/o Laique Bughio

Respondent : The State

Through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional PG for State Deputy Prosecutor General

Date of hearing : 09.09.2021

Date of order : 09.09.2021

J U D G M E N T

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.– Appellant Saeed S/o Laique Bughio, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro, in Sessions Case No.146/2014, arising out of Crime No.10/2013, for offence under Section 13(d) Arms Ordinance, 1965, registered at Police Station Leghari, District Naushahro Feroze. By judgment dated 07.10.2019, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 13(d) Arms Ordinance and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default thereof to undergo SI for 03 months. However, the benefit of Section 382‑B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant.

2. It is alleged that on 27.03.2013 complainant ASI Ghulam Abbas Almani lodged the FIR at police station, Leghari, stating therein that he along with his staff was in search of the wanted accused in Crime No.07/2013 under Section 17(3) Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, when reached at old Gachero, where he received information regarding arrival of the wanted accused on motorcycle towards River side, hence they went to the pointed place and reached near village Phull Bughio (Protective band), it was 1715 hours, three persons were coming on a motorcycle to whom they signaled to stop, but the accused on seeing police tried to escape but they collapsed with protective band and fallen down, whereas, the police party using the strategy arrested the present accused Saeed along with others and from his possession one pistol was recovered and on enquiry he failed to produce any valid license for the same. Thereafter accused were brought at police station, where separate FIRs were registered against them.

3. During pendency of appeal, the jail roll was called from the Senior Superintendent Central Prison and Correctional Facility, Sukkur, the perusal thereof reveals that the appellant has served-out his sentence and has been released from the jail during pendency of appeal.

4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial, which is full of contradictions and calls for interference by this Court. Besides, this almost on the same set of evidence, the appellant in main case arising out of Crime No.07/2013 of Police Station, Leghari for offence under Section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 has been acquitted by the learned trial Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Moro vide Judgment dated 02.05.2020.

5. Since the appellant has been acquitted in the main case on same set of evidence and after perusal of impugned judgment, this Court has come to the conclusion that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but the learned trial Court while passing the judgment has not properly considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses available on record, according to its prospectus; otherwise the appellant was entitled for acquittal in this case also.

6. Accordingly, this criminal jail appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 07.10.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro in Sessions Case No.146/2014 titled “The State vs. Saeed Bughio arising out of Crime No.10/2013 of Police Station, Leghari under Section 13(d) Arms Ordinance, 1965 is set-aside and the appellant Saeed Bughio is acquitted of the charge.

Judge

ARBROHI