THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2017

Appellant: Sikandar through Mr. Nasir Ahmed advocate

The State: Through Mr. Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Complainant: Muhammad Hanif through M/s Ameeruddin, Aijaz Ali Tunio and Ms. Adeela Ansari advocates

Date of hearing: 26.09.2022

Date of judgment: 04.10.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellant with rest of the culprits beside maltreatment, caused knife blow to P.W Irshad, thereby he sustained impairment of his left eye, for that the present case was registered. On investigation, the appellant, co-accused Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Akbar were reported upon by the police to face trial for the above said offence. On conclusion of trial, co-accused Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Akbar were acquitted while appellant was convicted under Section 336 PPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 05 years and to pay Arsh worth Rs.8,40,135/- to P.W Irshad within period of 05 years; with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C, by learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Central Prison, Karachi vide judgment dated 02.02.2017, 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 falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its grudge with him; the FIR has been lodged with considerable delay and on the basis of same evidence, co-accused Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Akbar have been acquitted. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant.

3. Learned Addl. P.G for the state and learned counsel for the complainant have sought for dismissal of the instant appeal by supporting the impugned judgment by contending that the case of appellant is distinguishable to that of acquitted accused.

4. Heard arguments and perused the record.

5. Initially the incident was recorded in Roznamcha. Subsequently, on issuance of supplementary medical certificate for offence punishable under Section 336 PPC, such Roznamcha entry was incorporated into FIR. Supplementary medical certificate was challenged by the appellant. The Medical Board was constituted and then the case was proceeded without waiting for the opinion of the Medical Board, it was to have been called for/ obtained before proceeding with the case further. Not only this, but SIP Muhammad Afzal who recorded Roznamcha entry and FIR of the present case was not examined by the prosecution. By such omission, the appellant obviously has been prejudiced seriously in his defence.

6. In view of above, the impugned judgment only to the extent of appellant is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law by taking into consideration the observations recorded above.

7. The appellant is present in Court on bail, he to enjoy the same concession subject to his furnishing fresh surety in sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE