MUHAMMAD BUX vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Bux, who was found guilty by the trial court for an offence under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's guilt, particularly given that the complainant failed to implicate the appellant during trial and other key witnesses were abandoned by the prosecution. The High Court observed that the complainant explicitly stated the appellant was not the person involved in the robbery. Furthermore, the appellant had already been acquitted in a separate case concerning the recovery of the stolen property (a mare) that had initially linked him to the current offence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide any ocular or corroborative evidence to connect the appellant to the crime. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of reliable evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence.
- Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant explicitly fails to identify the accused during trial?
- Does the acquittal of an accused in a recovery case undermine the prosecution's case in the main robbery offence?
- What is the legal consequence when the prosecution abandons key witnesses without assigning reasons?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' NISAR MUHAMMAD. SHAIKH, J.---During the course of arguments, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this case is of no evidence as against the present appellant Muhammad Bux, is conceded by learned A.P.G. Appearing for the State.
2. In the light of above submission, I have gone through the relevant material available on record, which shows that on 20-12010 the complainant Bhai Khan lodged F.I.R. No,05 of 2010 at Police Station, Pithoro under section 392/34 P.P.C. Alleging therein that on 18-1-2010 at 8-00 p.m. He along 'with PW Arab was going on a 'Mare' and on the 'way, four persons robbed his 'Mare' as well as cash of Rs,5000. The complainant further stated that he identified one of the culprits as accused Loung Mallah and the other as Khemchand Oad, while remaining two culprits were unknown, who made good their escape towards jungle. The complainant also stated that on their cries P.Ws. Ismail and others arrived there and he narrated the incident to them. Thereafter, the complainant also narrated the incident to their nekmard namely Rakhial Hingorjo and on his advice the complainant reached at Police Station and lodged such F.I.R.
3: During the investigation, the police recovered the robbed 'Mare' on 24-1-2010 from the possession of accused Lounge and present appellant Muhammad Bux. Accordingly, another F.I.R. No,03 of 2010 was also lodged at Police Station Dhoro Naro under section 411, P.P.C. By, complainant SIP Masqood Ahmed Channa S.H.O. Police Station Dhoro Naro. Both these accused were sent up to face trial and after such trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Umerkot vide his judgment dated 3-2-2011, convicted both of them for the offence under section 392, P.P.C. And sentenced for 10 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,30,000 each.
4. The record shows that the complainant Bhai Khan, during his evidence recorded by the trial Court, did not implicate the appellant Muhammad Bux in any way and he very clearly stated that this Muhammad Bux present in Court is not same. The P.W. Arab who was cited in the very F.I.R. As an eye-witness of the incident, was given up while the other private witnesses namely, Ismail and Rakhial whose names are also, mentioned in the very F.I.R., were also given up by the prosecution without assigning any reason. Accordingly, there is no sort of ocular evidence to connect the appellant Muhammad Bux for the alleged crime.
5. The present appellant who was connected in this case on account of alleged recovery of a 'Mare', regarding which another F.I.R. Was also registered, but the appellant was also acquitted from such case of alleged recovery of the robbed 'Mare'. The copy of such judgment dated 1-11- 2010 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-I, Umerkot in Cr. Case No,06 of 2010 was also produced by the appellant together with his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Before the trial Court.
6. In view of the above, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant as well as of learned A.P.G. For the State that it was a case of no evidence as against the present appellant is very much correct and therefore, the impugned judgment to the extent of the conviction and sentence awarded to the present appellant Muhammad Bux, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the alleged charge. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
' This appeal stands allowed accordingly.