ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                                              Cr.Acq.Appeal.No.S-   117    of    2010

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

17.10.2012.

Syed Jawaid Leghari, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Shahzada Saleem Nahyoon, A.P.G for the State.

                                    =

            This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is arising out of judgment dated 26.3.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi, whereby he acquitted the accused/Respondents Sher Muhammad s/o Haji Muhammad and Shah Muhammad alias Shahoo s/o Ghulam Muhammad as in the opinion of the trial Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and thereby extended benefit of doubt to both the accused and acquitted them u/s 265-H(1) Cr.P.C.

            At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant taken me to the evidence of one PW Anwar Ali who is the complainant and also to the evidence of one eye witness namely Allah Bakhsh.

            The complainant Anwar Ali in his examination in chief has categorically admitted that when two accused after committing the alleged offence were returning, PWs Allah Bakhsh and Khamiso came there who also alleged to have seen the incident. It has not been explained as to when two alleged accused were returning after the offence, how did these PWs Allah Bakhsh and Khamiso saw the incident from their own eyes. It is pertinent to mention that during trial, complainant dropped one eye witness namely Khamiso and only one eye witness namely Allah Bakhsh was examined.

            In the cross examination recorded by PW Allah Bakhsh, he deposed that when they got down at the bus stop of Wango More for going to the village, they saw at the distance of about half kilometer from their village that a white Suzuki Pick-up came there, from where the accused Sher Muhammad and Shah Muhammad alighted. This is quite in-convincing that they recognized and identified the Suzuki Pick-up as well as two accused persons at the distance of half kilometer which is quite far away. It was further admitted in examination in chief that complainant told these witnesses that alleged accused robbed an amount of Rs.10,400/-, one Mobile phone of Nokia and a Seiko wrist watch. The statement of this witness in the examination in chief as well as in cross examination is quite contradictory as in examination in chief he deposed that complainant told him about the incident whereas in his cross examination he stated that he has seen the incident from his own eyes. He also admitted that he did not know the number of vehicle as he was an illiterate person.

            In addition, the Medical Officer namely Kanji was examined in terms of the medical report. This witness deposed that he found no external injury or swelling on the body of injured. Then he took his X-Ray and the same was sent to Civil Hospital, Hyderabad for Radiologist expert report. On receiving the Radiologist report, he issued final medical certificate on 15.9.2009 whereby he opined that the injuries of the injured u/s 337-A(iii) PPC to be treated as “Shajjah-e-Hashimah”. In addition to this, Medical Officer also admitted that there was no injury of hitting of lathi on the nose of the complainant. These are the material witnesses whose evidence played vital role in the impugned judgment dated 26.3.2010.

            In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find anything wrong in the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court has discussed each and every piece of evidence that was required and has passed a detailed and exhausted judgment which is based on the material available on record. Consequently, these are the reasons of my short order dated 17.10.2012 whereby I dismissed this Criminal Acquittal Appeal.   

                                                                                                            JUDGE

Tufail