THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

 

Criminal Appeal No.S-45 of 2019

 

Appellants:                    PC Ubaidullah and PC Muhammad Nawaz through M/s. Habibullah G. Ghouri and Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, Advocates.

Respondent:                  The State,   through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

 

Criminal Appeal No.S-46 of 2019

 

Appellant:                     Ghulam Abbas Shah, through Syed Fida Hussain Shah, Advocate.

Respondent:                  The State,   through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

 

Criminal Appeal No.S-49 of 2019

 

Appellants:                    PC Abdul Qadir, PC Muhammad Juman and HC Ghulam Ali Shah through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.

Respondent:                  The State,   through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.

 

Date of hearing:            11.11.2022.

Date of Judgment:        11.11.2022.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

 

 

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J-. Through this single Judgment, I intend to dispose of the above Criminal Appeals filed by the appellants against the Judgment dated 09.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Larkana in Sessions Case No.481 of 2018, emanated from Crime No.29 of 2018 for the offence under sections 221, 223, 225, 120-B & 337-J, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Larkana whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced for offence under section 221 P.P.C to suffer R.I for four years and for offence under section 223 P.P.C to suffer R.I for two years.

2.      The crux of the prosecution case as per F.I.R lodged by complainant  SIP Sikandar Ali Chandio on 28.2.2018 at Police Station Civil Line Larkana, alleging therein that on the day of incident he alongwith his subordinate staff namely P.C Mukhtiar Ali, W.P.C Masroor Ali, left Police Station for the purpose of checking of Ghat, after visiting different Ghats, when at about 0015 hours, they reached at U.T.P Jail Ward Old Causality Civil Hospital Larkana, where they saw that lock was locked outside of the gate, they saw that P.C Muhammad Hassan, P.C Abdul Qadir were sleeping over the chairs. The complainant party knocked the door and made cries on which P.C Abdullah and P.C Ghulam Abbas Shah were came out from the room after opening the door, they further saw that accused Ghulam Hussain son of Lal Dino alias Manzoor Ali Mugheri r/o village Walhari Mugheri Taluka Kamber who was already confined in Crime No. 147/2017 under sections 504, 506/2, PPC P.S Kamber Sadar, Crime No. 181/2017 under section 324 PPC PS Kamber Saddar and Crime No.188/2017 under section 302, 324 PPC P.S Kamber in UTP Jail Ward and was missing and complainant party tried to wake up P.C Muhammad Juman and P.C Abdul Qadir but they were unconscious and H.C Ghulam Ali and P.C Muhammad Nawaz were not available on their duties. Then complainant informed his high ups and at Police Station, where from he obtained the letter for treatment of P.C Muhammad Juman and P.C Abdul Qadir who then shifted to the Causality Hospital, where they regained their sense and disclosed that accused Ahmed Ali son of unknown had given them intoxicated juice and escaped away accused Ghulam Hussain Mugheri from the custody. Hence, the instant FIR.

3.      After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the challan and after completion of all the legal formalities, the trial Court framed the charge against the accused, to which they pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried.

4.      Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the prosecution allegations leveled against them. 

5.      The prosecution in order to establish the case examined ASI Atahar Ali Magsi (author of FIR) at Ex.14, who produced entries, and FIR at Ex.14/A and 14/B respectively. P.W-2 P.C Masroor Ahmed Chandio at Ex.15, P.W-3 P.C Mukhtiar Ali at Ex. 16, P.W-4 SIP Sikandar Ali (complainant) at Ex. 17, he produced roznamcha entry at Ex.17/A, P.W-5 P.C Meer Hassan at Ex.18, he produced memo of arrest at Ex.18/A, P.W -6 P.C Zulfiqar Ali at Ex.20, he produced entries No.13, 16, 17, 08 Memo of site inspection and Memos of arrest at Ex.20/A&D respectively.   P.W-7 P.C Masood Ahmed at Ex.21, P.W 08 Inspector Abdul Malik Kamngar at Ex.22, he produced permission letter, Letter to MS, copy of letter of joining investigation, a letter to DSP Civil Line Larkana for placing names of accused in ECL, copy of finger prints, letter sent to Incharge NADRA for blocking CNIC, Roznamcha entry No.06, 12 and 26 at Ex.22/A to Ex.22/I respectively. P.W-9 Medical Officer at Ex.23, who produced Provisional Medical Certificates and Final Medical Certificates at Ex.23/A to 23/E respectively. P.W-10 P.C Riaz Hussain at Ex.24. Thereafter learned DDPP for the state closed side of prosecution at Ex.25.

6.                The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the evidence, convicted the appellants/accused vide judgment dated 09.07.2019.  The conviction recorded by the learned trial Court has been impugned by the appellants/accused by way of these Criminal Appeals.

7.                Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case; that the appellants are police officials; that the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial is not properly assessed and evaluated and insufficient to warrant conviction of the appellants; that the learned trial Court has not observed the established rules of the appreciation of the evidence in deciding the case; that conviction of appellants is based upon manifestly unsatisfactory evidence; that there are many contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses examined during trial; that the impugned judgment is not based on correct appraisal of evidence, as the trial Court has not appreciated the material contradictions and discrepancies which arose in prosecution evidence and without appreciating the material available before it has wrongly convicted the appellants, thereby has caused miscarriage of justice.  He lastly prayed that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt; therefore, the appellants may be acquitted.

8.                On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment and contended that the appellants’ negligence is pointed out in the F.I.R; that the P.Ws have fully supported the prosecution case, hence the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, therefore, the appeals filed by the appellants are without any merit and are liable to be dismissed.

9.                I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record.

10.              Admittedly, the names of the appellants were mentioned in the F.I.R but no specific role for escaping the accused Ghulam Hussain from the lockup has been made out and only accused Ahmed Ali has been attributed role of giving intoxicated juice to the police officials present on duty. There are many other discrepancies, inconsistencies and material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, which rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful.  It is well-settled principle of law that there is no need to gather many circumstances for extending the benefit of doubt to an accused, but single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of accused is sufficient to discard the evidence of prosecution.  I am fortified by the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 S C M R 1345).

11.              For what has been discussed above, I have come to conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, while extending benefit of doubt the instant appeals are allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 09.07.2019, passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and surety stand discharged.  Office is directed to return the surety papers to the Surety after verification and identification as per rules.

 

                                                                                      JUDGE

 

Manzoor