ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Revision Appln.No.S-32 of 2021

DATE                         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of main case.

20.03.2023.

Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the  applicants.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                                                            -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J; It is the case of prosecution that the applicants in furtherance of their common intention after keeping PW Rehman Ali under wrongful restraint, attempted to commit with him an unnatural offence, for that they were booked and reported upon. On conclusion of trial, they were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment spreading over two years with fine by learned 2^nd Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate/MTMC Mehar which was impugned by them by preferring an appeal; it was dismissed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, vide judgment dated 30.04.2021, which they have impugned before this Court by preferring the instant criminal revision application.

2.         It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy with them his enmity and learned Courts below have convicted and sentenced the applicants on the basis of misappraisal of the evidence, therefore, they are liable to be acquitted by extending them benefit of doubt.

3.         None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant, however, learned Addl.P.G for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal revision application.

4.             Heard arguments and perused the record.

5.         No act of an unnatural offence has taken place; it was case of mere attempt; there is no independent witness to the incident; the PWs who have been examined by the complainant are appearing to be his stock witnesses; the parties admittedly are disputed with each other; the memo of place of incident is not supporting the case of the complainant. In these circumstances, it would be safe to conclude that the prosecution has not been able to prove the involvement of the applicants in commission of the incident beyond shadow of doubt and to such benefit, they are found entitled.

6.                     In case of Muhammad Masha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772),      it was observed 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". Reliance in this behalf can be made upon the cases of Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v.The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) and Muhammad Zaman v.The State            (2014 SCMR 749).”

7.         In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicants by way of impugned judgment are set-aside and they are acquitted of the offence for which they were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by learned trial and appellate Courts, they are present in Court on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

8.         The instant criminal revision application is disposed of accordingly.                                  

JUDGE