HC MUHAMMAD KHAN and 3 others vs THE STATE
This criminal revision application challenges the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which convicted four police officials for negligence leading to the escape of an under-trial prisoner (UTP) from a hospital. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established that the applicants were legally bound to keep the prisoner in confinement and that his escape resulted from their specific negligence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as duty rosters or register entries, to prove that the applicants were assigned to guard the UTP at the time of the escape. The Court emphasized that while the burden of disproving negligence shifts to the public servant once the duty is established, the prosecution must first prove the existence of that duty. Finding that the prosecution failed to establish this foundational fact, the Court set aside the convictions. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
- Must the prosecution prove that a public servant was legally bound to keep a prisoner in confinement to sustain a conviction for negligence leading to escape?
- Is the absence of documentary evidence regarding duty rosters sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a case of alleged negligence by police officials?
- Does the burden of proof regarding negligence shift to the public servant before the prosecution establishes the existence of a duty?
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.---Through instant criminal revision application, applicants have challenged the concurrent findings recorded by trial Court as well appellate Court, whereby applicants have been convicted for one year rigorous imprisonment.
2. Case of the prosecution is that one UTP namely Muhammad Ramzan, due to urinal pain was referred to Civil Hospital Sanghar and he was admitted by the hospital administration. On 24.09.2007, on visit, doctor found him missing hence, the matter was reported to the concerned police thereby these four applicants were arraigned.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants at the outset, has contended that there is no proof that applicants were on duty on the fateful day. He referred to the evidence of complainant who, in his cross-examination, admits that "it is correct to suggest that on that day HC All Muhammad was doing duty at police line on telephone and roznamcha. It is correct to suggest that I and WHC Abdul Hameed were not present in office at night on that day." Whereas learned APG while supporting the impugned judgments contends that one witness has deposed that present police officials were on duty; however, that entry is not produced on record. He refers to evidence of PW-5, who is Jail Superintendent and stated that UTP was referred to hospital due to urinal tract problem, however, he has not produced any document with regard to negligence on the part of any of the applicants.
4. I have heard the respective sides and have also carefully gone through the available record.
5. Case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2007, UTP escaped from Ward of Hospital and present applicants were held guilty of negligence resulted into such escape. I have no confusion in my mind that the offence wherein the applicants have been convicted is of two folds. The first one is that such public servant must have been legally bound to keep escaped person in confinement and second one is that escape must have been due to negligence of such public servant. In such like cases the prosecution must establish first one while the burden would be upon public servant to disprove the second fold that escape was not result of his negligence. In the instant matter, nothing was brought on record with regard to duty of present applicants over the escaped accused or at such place. The duties of police officials, including that of jail are regulated under entries in relevant record (registers) hence prosecution was required to have produced such entries on record but it is a matter of record that no such entry or proof has been brought on record. In absence thereof, the conviction for such an offence cannot sustain. Both the Courts below erred in law while not appreciating the well settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt to an accused more than one infirmity is not required but a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt is sufficient. (Muhammad Luqman v. The State PLD 1970 SC 10).
Accordingly, this case is not free from doubt; as a result of which, impugned judgments dated 31.10.2009 and 01.04.2014 are hereby set aside. Applicants are acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt. They are present on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and surety stand discharged.
Cited by 1 case
- Abdul Rehman Shaikh and others vs The State 2024 YLR 70