| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 2033 2025 SLD 2033 |
Sindh High Court, Larkana Bench
Criminal Appeal No. S-11 and M.A. No. 420 of 2020, decided on 16th May, 2023.
Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J
Razi Khan Nabi Bux R. Chandio for Appellant. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. S-11 and M.A. No. 420 of 2020, decided on 16th May, 2023.
Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J
Razi Khan Nabi Bux R. Chandio for Appellant. Aitbar Ali Bullo, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
MIANDAD CHANDIO---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),452,504,337H(2),114,147,148,149
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 452, 504, 337-H(2), 114, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, housetrespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, assault or wrongful restraint, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of four days in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant---Incident took place on 21.09.2017 at 11.00 pm and the distance between the place of the incident and the police station was 18/19 km and the FIR was registered on 25.09.2017, even otherwise, after the incident police was not informed the whole night and in the morning complainant party brought the dead body at hospital where they called the police---On the approach of the police, the FIR was not registered but the police started the investigation and later on after four days FIR was registered---Such delay in the FIR had not been explained by the complainant---Complainant admitted during her cross-examination that she lodged the FIR after consultation with her elders---Such delay in the registration of FIR made the entire case doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185 and Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State 2012 SCMR 428 ref.Noor Muhammad v. The State 2010 SCMR 97 and Muhammad Fiaz Khan v.Ajmer Khan 2010 SCMR 105 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 452, 504, 337-H(2), 114, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, housetrespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, assault or wrongful restraint, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light not established---Effect---Accused were charged for…