IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No.S-35 of 2020

Appellants:                   1). Manjhi s/o Bakhshan

                                      2). Ghazi s/o Bakhshan

                                      3). Meero s/o Bakhshan

                                      4). Abbas s/o Gulsher @ Gul Muhammad

                                      5). Ahmed s/o Gulmeer

                                      6). Baskhshan @ Punhal  s/o Manjhi  Golo

Through M/S. Rafique Ahmed Abro & Faiz Muhammad Larik, Advocate(s).

Complainant:               Muhammad Sulleman Khoso,

Through Mr. Riaz Hussain Khoso, Advocate

The State:                      Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G, Sindh

Date of hearing:           31.03.2023

Date of decision:           31.03.2023

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- It is alleged that appellants after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, fired at complainant and PW Faiz Muhammad with intention to commit their murder and then went away by causing lathi injuries to PWs Faiz Muhammad, Khawand Bux and Shah Nawaz, for  that they were booked and reported upon. On conclusion of trial, they were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment spreading over three years with fine/Arsh by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Jacobabad, vide judgment dated 16.04.2020, which they have impugned before this Court by preferring the instant criminal appeal.

2.         It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its matrimonial dispute with them; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day; it was the case of general allegation and they have been convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court on the basis of evidence of PWs which was doubtful in its character; therefore, they are entitled to their acquittal by extending them benefit of doubt, which is opposed by learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant by supporting the impugned judgment.

3.         Heard arguments and perused the record.

4.         The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked; it is reflecting consultation and deliberation. The firing was ineffective one. As per I.O/SIP Ghulam Mustafa, no recovery was made from the place of incident. As per FIR, the role attributed to the appellants in commission of the incident with regard to the causing of lathi injuries to PWs Faiz Muhammad, Khanwand Bux and Shah Nawaz was general in nature. Even at trial, no specific injury to any of the injured is attributed to either of the appellants by the complainant or any of his witness. There was counter version of the incident. The parties admittedly are disputed with each other. In these circumstances, it could be concluded safely that the prosecution has not able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt and to such benefit he is found entitled.

5.         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".

6.         In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by way of impugned judgment are set-aside, consequently, they are acquitted of the charge for which they were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court; they are present in Court on bail; their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

7.         The instant criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.

         JUDGE