ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Revision Appln. No.S-50 of 2019.
_________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_________________________________________________________________
For hearing of main case.
03.04.2023
Mr. Nooruddin Mahessar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.
= * = * = * = * = * =
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, caused fire shot injuries to PW Imtiaz Ali with intention to commit his murder, for that he was booked and reported upon. On conclusion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment spreading over three years with fine/daman by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ratodero, vide judgment dated 21.05.2019, which he impugned by preferring an appeal; it was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, vide judgment dated 29.07.2019, which he has impugned before this Court by making the instant criminal revision application.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its dispute with him over the landed property; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about one day; no injury to the injured is attributed to the applicant specifically and learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence properly; therefore, the applicant is entitled to his acquittal by extending him 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 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 ignored; it is reflecting consultation and deliberation. It was night time incident; therefore, the identity of the applicant is appearing to be doubtful. None of the injury sustained by PW/injured Imtiaz Ali is attributed specifically to the applicant. As per complainant Ashfaque Ahmed on his raising cries, the co-villagers attracted to the incident. If it was so, then at least one amongst them was to have been examined to prove the correctness of the incident; it has not been done for no obvious reason; such omission could not be overlooked. As per PW Imtiaz Ali, on sustaining of fire shot injuries, he became unconscious and remained so for about two days. As per medical officer Dr. Abdullah Shaikh, the injured was conscious when was brought at hospital; such inconsistency could not be lost sight of. PW Nazir Ahmed who allegedly was with the complainant party at the time of incident has not been examined. The inference drawn of his non-examination under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, would be that he was not going to support the case of prosecution. No weapon is recovered from the applicant. The parties admittedly are disputed over the landed property which prima facie suggests the false involvement of the applicant in commission of the incident. In these circumstances, it could be concluded safely that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the applicant beyond shadow of doubt and to such benefit he is found entitled.
5. In case of Imran Ashraf and others vs. The State (2001 SCMR-424), it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;
“Section 154, Cr.P.C. lays down procedure for registration of an information in cognizable cases and it also indeed gives mandatory direction for registration of the case as per the procedure. Therefore, police enjoys no jurisdiction to cause delay in registration of the case and under the law is bound to act accordingly enabling the machinery of law to come into play as soon as it is possible and if first information report is registered without any delay it can help the investigating agency in completing the process of investigation expeditiously”.
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. Having concluded above, the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant by Courts below are set-aside, consequently, he is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced by learned trial Court; his bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged.
8. The instant criminal revision application is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE