IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI
Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2022
Appellants: Mehtab
Ahmed Khan Niazi @ Maya through Mr. Dilawar Hussain advocate
The State: Through
Mr. Faheem Hussain Panhwar, Prosecutor General Sindh
Date of hearing: 15.11.2022
Date of judgment: 15.11.2022
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellant with rest of
the culprits robbed complainant Muhammad Kamran of Rupees Two Crores, for that he
was booked and reported upon by the police. On conclusion of trial, he and
co-accused Farhan Khan, Ali Shan and Khalid Mehmood were convicted under
section 395 PPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 08
years and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each and in default whereof to simple
imprisonment for 01 year with benefit of section 382(b) Cr.P.C by learned X-Additional
Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide judgment dated 18.02.2022, which is impugned
by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for
the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this case
by the police on the basis of statement of co-accused otherwise he has nothing
to do with the alleged incident and he has been convicted and sentenced by
learned trial Court virtually on the basis of no evidence, therefore, he is
entitled to his acquittal which is opposed by learned DPG for the state by
contending that it is case of conjoint liability which the prosecution has been
able to prove against him beyond shadow of doubt.
3. Heard arguments and perused the record.
4. The name and description of the appellant
are not disclosed by the complainant in his FIR, though it is lodged with unexplained
delay of about 02 days; no identification parade of the appellant has taken
place; there is no recovery of any sort from the appellant; he obviously has
been involved in commission of incident by the police on the basis of
statements of co-accused Farhan Khan, Khalid Mehmood and Ali Shan which could hardly
be treated as evidence. Even otherwise, I.O/SIP Muhammad Siddique on asking was
fair enough to admit that he has not recovered anything implicating the appellant
in commission of incident. In these circumstances, it would be safe to conclude
that the prosecution has not been able to prove the involvement of appellant in
commission of incident.
5. In
view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the conviction and sentence
awarded to the appellant (Mehtab) by way of impugned judgment are set aside,
consequently, he is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged, tried,
convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court; he is in custody to be released
forthwith if not required to be detained in any other custody case.
6. The
instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE