Judgment sheet.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Cr. Jail Appeal No.S-44 of 2005.

Date of hearing 1.04-2011.

Appellant        :                                   Nemo for the appellant.

Respondent    :                                   The State through Syed Meeral Shah,DPG.

JUDGMENT.

Muhammad Ali Mazhar,J-On the last date of hearing, the jail roll was called. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad has submitted a report dated 29.3.2011 to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, in which it is mentioned that the appellant Khair Din S/o Noor Muhammad has already been released from the jail on 7.12.2005 on completion of his sentence.

            I have seen the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas in Sessions Case No.28 of 2002, which shows that the learned trial Court before awarding the sentence, recorded the evidence of eleven prosecution witnesses and statement of accused was also recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations. The learned Sessions Judge also framed the points for determination:-

1. Whether on 7.1.2002 at 8 p.m. both accused duly armed with pistols, on the show of force took away the motorcycle of complainant Abdul Jabbar and on resistance fired with pistol on the complainant, which hit him on his left arm-pit, as  alleged by the prosecution?

2. Whether on 7.2.1002 at 8 p.m. accused Khair Din was apprehended by the Muhalla people and produced before the police while accused Yaseen ran away, as alleged by the prosecution?

3. What offence if any has been committed by the accused?

            The identification parade was also made before the Joint Civil Judge and FCM, Mirpurkhas in which the complainant and another prosecution witness both have identified the accused. After appreciating the entire evidence, the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under section 382, PPC for a period of four years and fine of Rs:five thousand. The same appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable under section 337-F(ii), PPC for a period of three years and to pay daman amount of Rs: five thousand. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently with the extension of benefit of section 382(b), Cr.P.C. The trial Court passed the judgment on proper appreciation of evidence and since the appellant has already been released after his completion of sentence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, therefore, this jail appeal is dismissed accordingly.

                                                                                                                        JUDGE.