ABDULLAH SEINHARO Versus MUHAMMAD HASHIM
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.07.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III Tando Allahyar in Criminal case No.93 of 2016, re: State v. Muhammad Hashim and others, emanating from FIR No.06 of 2016, registered at Police Station Umar Sand for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 506, 504, 337-A(ii), 337A(i), P.P.C. whereby the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 have been acquitted of the charge, extending them benefit of doubt.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.11.2015 at about 1545 hours, accused persons namely Muhammad Hashim, Aari, Sajjad, Sikandar, Ali Akbar and Ameer armed with hatchet, and batons (lathies) entered into the house of the complainant and tried to stop the renovation and construction work of the house; they insulted and abused the complainant and has beaten his brother thereby alleged to have committed provoke the breach of peace and threatened to murder them. It is also alleged that accused Muhammad Hashim and Aari caused injuries to the complainant with hatchet, whereas accused Sajjad, Sikandar, Ali Akbar and Ameer Ali gave beatings to PW Mehmood by causing him fists, kicks and lathi blows; on 27.02.2016 the complainant lodged his above FIR at Police Station Umar Sand. After usual investigation the final report was submitted against the accused.
3. The learned Trial Court after completing all the legal requirements framed charge against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined complainant Abdullah Seinharo at Exh:07, who produced original copy of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.49 of 2016, his statement under section 155, Cr.P.C. and copy of FIR at Exhs:07/A, 07/B and 07/C respectively; PW-2 Mehmood at Exh:08; PW-03 Ghulam Mustafa at Exh:09, who produced memo of injuries and memo of place of incident at Exhs: 09/A and 09/B respectively; PW-04 Ghulam Hussain Mirjat at Exh:10; PW-05 Ghulam Muhammad Khaskheli at Exh:11, who produced letter for medical treatment, outdoor patient ticket, provisional medical certificate, report of radiologist, final medical certificate and decision of medical board at Exhs.11/A to 11/F respectively; and PW-6 I.O. SIP Abdul Aziz Chutto at Exh:12. Then the prosecution side was closed vide statement at Exh:13. The statement of accused as required under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded at Exh:14 to Exh:19 respectively, wherein they denying all the allegations, professed their innocence. They neither opted to examine themselves on oath nor did they produce any witness as their defence witness.
4. At the conclusion of the trial and after hearing the parties counsel, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused ["the respondents"] of the charge by extending them benefit of doubt vide impugned judgment dated 26.07.2017 as discussed supra.
5. Having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal judgment, complainant ["the appellant"] has filed this criminal acquittal appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that impugned judgment was passed without appreciating the evidence brought by the prosecution at trial; that ocular evidence furnished by the complainant and PWs was supported by the medical evidence but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate such aspect of the case in proper manner and acquitted the respondents. Learned counsel prays that impugned Judgment is illegal which may be set-aside and the case may be remanded to the learned Trial Court for decision afresh after re-appraisal of the evidence on the record.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the material brought on record.
8. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 22.11.2015 at 1545 hours, while its FIR was registered on 27.02.2016 at 1715 hours with unexplained delay of three months and five days, which is fatal to the prosecution case; PW-1 complainant Abdullah deposed that accused Muhammad Hashim gave me hatchet blow on my head whereas accused Aari gave me the blow of hatchet by using its blunt side at my arm whereas PW-2 Mehmood has deposed that accused Muhammad Hashim caused hatchet blow to the complainant at front side on his forehead while accused Aari used the blunt side of hatchet and caused its blow to the complainant on his back and whereas PW-5 Dr. Ghulam Muhammad Khaskheli, Senior Medical Officer who examined injured Abdullah did not state about any injury on the arm of complainant Abdullah; complainant Abdullah has deposed that accused persons namely Sikandar, Sajjad, Ameer, and Ali Akbar having batons (lathies) had beaten my younger brother Mehmood, accused persons also used kicks and fists against my brother and PW-2 Mehmood has deposed that accused persons namely Ali Akbar, Sajjad Ali, Ameer Ali, Sikandar Ali came there and beaten me with batons and kicks and fists but there is no medical evidence to substantiate the version of prosecution regarding the injuries allegedly sustained by PW Mehmood, who neither was examined by the medical officer nor was mashirnama of injuries allegedly sustained by PW Mehmood prepared; PW-1 Abdullah stated that my brother Mehmood arranged a car and took me towards the police station Umar Sand where police issued letter for medical treatment to us, PW-2 Mehmood has deposed that I made an arrangement for vehicles for carrying the complainant-injured towards the police station and I reached at P.S Umar Sand where police officials issued us letter for medical treatment and whereas PW-SIP Abdul Aziz has deposed that two persons namely Ghulam Mustafa and Ghulam Qadir were accompanied with victim/injured (Abdullah) that injured was brought at police station on motorcycle by the mashirs Ghulam Qadir and Ghulam Mustafa. I kept entry No.15 in Roznamcha register. I have not produced the roznamcha entry No. 15 before this Court. It is correct to suggest that short after the incident injured did not come at Police Station for lodging his FIR. It is correct to suggest that I have not produced departure entry (for the place of incident). PW-4 Ghulam Hussain has deposed that accused Hashim and Aari caused the hatchet blow to the complainant but he did not state as to how many injuries were sustained by PW-complainant Abdullah; medical evidence reveals four injuries on the person of PW-complainant Abdullah and whereas the mashirnams of injuries showed only two injuries. And per PW injured Abdullah and PW Mehmood, the injured Abdullah had sustained two injuries. Apart from the aforesaid discrepancies, infirmities and material contradictions etc, rendering the prosecution case highly doubtful, there are many other infirmities, which need not to be discussed here just to save the space. The learned trial Court by considering the aforesaid aspects of the case came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and such a conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court based on appreciation of evidence, suffering from no illegality or infirmity or perversity or even any jurisdictional defect, does not call for any interference in the case one in hand involving acquittal judgment. In such view of the matter, the instant criminal acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 30.12.2019, whereby this Criminal Acquittal appeal was dismissed.
SA/A-48/Sindh Appeal dismissed.