THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Revision Application No.S-10 of 2016

Applicant:            Tanveer Hussain Soomro through Mr. Imdad Ali Tunio, Advocate.

Respondents:      Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2.

                            Mr. Safdar Ali G. Bhutto, Advocate for Respondent No.4

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

Date of hearing:  17.11.2022

Date of Order:     17.11.2022

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through this Criminal Revision Application, applicant Tanveer Hussain son of Aijaz Ali Soomro has impugned the order dated 18.02.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Larkana in Direct Complaint No.03 of 2016 (Re-Tanvir Hussain v/s. Miran Khan Durrani and others), whereby Direct Complaint was dismissed on the ground that the learned Trial Court did not find any merits in the case.

2.                Per learned counsel for the applicant, the statement of the applicant was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that the proposed accused put water of lime stone and naswar into his nose and mouth, he became unconscious and started bleeding from his nose and mouth, then S.H.O. Miran Khan Durrani brought him in police mobile to the Causality, thereafter he was miserably tortured.  Per learned counsel, on the basis of this report the Direct Complaint was filed and in the Statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C the complainant has implicated the proposed accused.  He lastly prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the learned Trial Court may be directed to proceed further after recording statement of the P.Ws shown in the Direct Complaint.

3.                On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 submits that actually the accused/applicant was involved in Crime No.81/2015 of Police Station Civil Lines, Larkana for an offence punishable under section 395 P.P.C and in order to make the case of counter blast and try to create pressure upon the complainant of above crime, he has filed false Direct Complaint before the learned Trial Court as such the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the Direct Complaint of the applicant.

4.                Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that first time name of respondent No.4 has been placed in the Direct Complaint otherwise previously so many applications were filed by applicant Tanveer Hussain, but his name as well as his brother’s name was not mentioned there.  He lastly prayed that the instant revision application may be dismissed.

5.                Learned Deputy Prosecutor General however has not supported the impugned order and submits that the ocular evidence submitted by applicant Tanveer Hussain finds support from the medical evidence.

6.                Heard and perused.  Perusal of record reflects that a Direct Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant Tanveer Hussain against S.H.O. Miran Khan Durrani, S.H.O Mahtab Ahmed Khuhawar, Inspector Syed Ali Raza Shah alias Jani Shah and Abid Rasheed resident of unknown place, after filing application his statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C, wherein he has alleged that on 07.09.2015, he was present in his home and left for work, suddenly two police mobiles intercepted him from which all the police officials alighted from the police mobiles and S.H.O. Miran Khan Durrani arrested and maltreated him and subsequently brought him at Police Station, where he was miserably tortured.  Since he was severely tortured then on the directions of the proposed accused he was ready to record his confessional statement, subsequently he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Larkana in case bearing Crime No.81/2015 of Police Station Civil Lines, Larkana. When he was produced before the Magistrate, learned Magistrate enquired from him wherein he disclosed that the proposed accused persons have maltreated him as such S.H.O was directed to produce him before Medical Superintendent, C.M.C.H. Larkana for his medical checkup and as per Medical Certificate the injured/complainant has received five injuries allegedly at the hands of the proposed accused persons. Since the only evidence of the complainant was recorded and he was not given a chance to produce his witnesses to support his contention, in such circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.02.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Larkana is set aside. However, the complainant is directed to produce the remaining witnesses alongwith material before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court is directed that after recording the evidence of the witnesses and evaluating the material brought on record and after considering all things, pass an appropriate and speaking order.

                   Instant Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the above terms.

                                                        J U D G E

Manzoor