IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 232 of 2022

Appellant: Nemo

The State: Through Mr. Faheem Hussain Panhwar, Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of hearing: 05.09.2022

Date of judgment: 05.09.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellant robbed complainant Fahad Ahmed Qureshi of his cell phone and other belongings, for that the present case was registered. After due trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 397 PPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month, ignoring the fact that the minimum sentence for the said offence shall not be less than 07 years by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East vide judgment dated 28.10.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant appeal from jail.

2. The appellant as per jail roll has already been released on completion of his jail term and probably this appears to be a reason for him to have neglected the instant jail appeal, same could not be kept pending on file for want of his appearance therefore, it was decided to be disposed of on merits after hearing learned D.P.G for the State.

3. Learned DPG for the state by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant jail appeal.

4. Heard arguments and perused the record.

5. The name and description of the appellant are not appearing in the FIR though it is lodged with delay of 21 days, such omission could not be overlooked. The identity of the appellant by the complainant at police station without involvement of the Magistrate could hardly be relied upon. None of the robbed article is recovered from the appellant. In these circumstances, it could be concluded safely 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. No formal order of release of the appellant is being passed as he as per jail roll he has already been released on completion of his jail term.

8. The instant jail appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE