JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No.S-59 of 2020.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

10.02.2022

                        Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is alleged that the appellant committed murder of his sister Mst.Zeenat Khatoon by causing her fire shot injuries, after declaring her to be “Kari” with one Ashique Ali, for that he was booked and reported upon by the police. On due trial, he was found guilty and convicted under section 302 (b) PPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I for Life as Tazir and to pay rupees Five Lacs as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased and in default whereof to undergo S.I for one year, with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.PC, by learned 1^st Additional Sessions  Judge/MCTC, Jacobabad, vide judgment dated 05.09.2020, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal appeal.

2.        It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant on the basis of no evidence. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant by extending him benefit of doubt.

3.        Learned Addl.P.G for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal appeal.

4.        I have considered the above arguments and have perused the record.

5.        No relative of the deceased came forward to lodge FIR of the incident independently, which appears to be surprising; it is lodged by SIP Ghulam Shabir on behalf of the State. As per him and PWs PC Fate Khan and PC Saddam Hussain, they came to know through spy information that the appellant has committed murder of his sister by causing fire shot injuries to her, after declaring her to be “Kari”. On such information, they proceeded to the place of incident and apprehended the appellant with pistol allegedly used by him in commission of the incident. It is surprising to note that the appellant after commission of murder of his sister by causing her fire shot injuries was waiting for the police to come and arrest him. If for the sake of arguments, the evidence of complainant and his witnesses is believed to be true, even then they are not witnesses to actual death of the deceased; therefore, their evidence is not found sufficient to maintain conviction against the appellant only on the basis of recovery of alleged crime weapon. Only eye-witness to the incident being Mst.Izat Khatoon, who happened to be mother of the deceased, could not be examined by the prosecution on account of her death. DW Abdul Sattar, who happened to be father of the deceased, has declared the appellant to be innocent. In these circumstances, it would be safe to conclude that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.

6.        In case of Muhammad Mansha Vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex court that;

“4. Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted".

7.        In view of above, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by way of impugned judgment are set aside, consequently, he is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged, tried and convicted by learned trial Court; he shall be released forthwith in the present case,        if is not required to be detained in any other custody case.

8.        The instant criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE