| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6759 2024 SLD 6759 = 2024 YLR 1565 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Criminal Appeal No. S-129 of 2019, Criminal Acquittal Appeals Nos. D-123 of 2019, D-43 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Application No. D-67 of 2019, decided on 5th July, 2023.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Abdul Mobeen Lakho, JJ
Shabbir Ali Bozdar for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. S-129 of 2019 and
Respondent in Cr. Rev. Application No.D-67 of 2019). Abdul Rasheed Kalwar, Ghous Bux Shah Kaheri and Ajeebullah Junejo for
Respondents (in all four cases). Qurban Ali Malano for the Complainant (in all four cases). Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. S-129 of 2019, Criminal Acquittal Appeals Nos. D-123 of 2019, D-43 of 2021 and Criminal Revision Application No. D-67 of 2019, decided on 5th July, 2023.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Abdul Mobeen Lakho, JJ
Shabbir Ali Bozdar for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. S-129 of 2019 and
Respondent in Cr. Rev. Application No.D-67 of 2019). Abdul Rasheed Kalwar, Ghous Bux Shah Kaheri and Ajeebullah Junejo for
Respondents (in all four cases). Qurban Ali Malano for the Complainant (in all four cases). Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.
NADIR KHOSO and others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),114,147,148,149
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 129(g)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 161
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 114, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when occurrence took place, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly--Appreciation of evidence---Delay of thirty three hours in lodging the FIR--Possibility of fake implication---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that accused were involved by the complainant party in a false case---Record showed that there was delay of 33 hours in lodging of the FIR---From contents of the FIR it was crystal clear that victim after receiving injuries had died at the spot and his dead body was taken to police station by complainant party---It was not understandable that when deceased had succumbed to his injuries at the spot and his dead body was taken to police station then what prevented the complainant to get the FIR registered when he had taken the dead body to police station---No plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for such long delay which created doubt regarding false involvement of the accused in the case---Thus, possibility of deliberation and consultation on the part of complainant party and false implication of the accused could not be ruled out---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 and Sabir Hussain v. The State 2022 YLR 173 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 114, 147, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)--Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when occurrence took place, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Alleged eye-witness not produced before Trial Court---Effect---Adverse presumption against prosecution---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---One witness was alleged to have seen the incident and his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., was also recorded by the police, thus he was an important eye-witness of the incident---However, said witness was not produced before the Trial Court and was given up by the prosecution on the basis of…