IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

 

Cr. Appeal No. S-08 of 2022

 

 

Appellant                         Zainulabdin s/o Ali Abbas Solangi,  

                                        Through Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro, advocate

 

 

Complainant:                   Abdul Wahab Solangi,

                                        Through Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, advocate

 

The State:                       Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G for the State.

 

 

          Date of hearing:              31-03-2023

 

          Date of Decision:           31-03-2023

 

J U D G M E N T

 

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J. Through instant criminal appeal, the appellant Zainulabdin Solangi s/o Ali Abbas Solangi has assailed the Judgment dated 24.02.2022, passed by the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, in Sessions Case No.379/2020, re: State V/S Shahabuddin & others, being outcome of Crime No.51/2020 of P.S. Radhan, for the offence U/S 324, 147, 148, 149, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-D, 452, 506/2 and 504 P.P.C, whereby the learned trial court has convicted the appellant U/S 265-H (ii) Cr.P.C as under:-

(i)       To suffer R.I for five years for the offence punishable U/S 324 PPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-.In case of nonpayment of fine he will suffer S.I for six months more.

(ii)      To suffer R.I for five years for the offence punishable U/S 337-D PPC and to pay Arsh which shall be 1/3rd of the “Diyat” amount. In case of default of payment of Arsh and Diyat he will suffer S.I for 6 months more.

(iii)      If fine, Arsh and Diyat are recovered the same shall be paid to the injured/complainant Abdul Wahab as compensation.

(iv)     All the sentence will run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B Cr,P.C.

2.                          The Police after usual investigation, submitted the charge sheet before the Court of law. Trail court framed the charge against the appellant/accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3.                          In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses, who produced certain documents and items in support of their statements, thereafter the side of prosecution was closed by the learned A.D.P.P for the State.

4.                          The appellant was examined in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C, who denied the allegations and claimed his innocence. The appellant neither led any defence evidence nor did examine himself on oath.

5.                          After assessment of evidence, learned trial court has passed the above impugned judgment and awarded the sentence to the present appellant/accused as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant/accused above named has preferred this criminal appeal.

6.                          From perusal of entire evidence, it appears that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution, same have not been considered by the trial court. However, today the complainant Abdul Wahab, who is also injured of the case, is present with his counsel and stated that he had compromised with the appellant/accused person and has no objection if the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The complainant also withdraws Cr. Revision Appln. No.S-19/2022 filed by him for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant/accused. Co-accused Shahabuddin Solangi also withdraws Cr. Acq. Appeal No. S-49/2021 filed by him against the complainant Abdul Wahab Solangi and co-accused Amjad Solangi.

7.                          Looking into the contradictions available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and no objection raised by the complainant and injured, instant criminal appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant/accused Zainulabdin Solangi by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment are set-aside and he is acquitted of the charged offence. Office is directed to issue release writ, directing the concerned jail authorities to release the appellant forthwith in the present case, if he is no more required in any other custody case.

 

                                                                         Judge