SIKANDAR ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, which maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarded by the trial court. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant, a driver in the Social Welfare Department, entered the office of the complainant (Assistant Director), exchanged harsh words, and issued death threats after being asked not to stay overnight in the government office. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the charge of criminal intimidation beyond reasonable doubt through reliable and sufficient evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the star eye-witness was given up, the remaining witnesses were interested witnesses subordinate to the complainant, defence witnesses were not cross-examined, and the incident stemmed from departmental friction or enmity. The revision was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are interested, crucial eye-witnesses are withheld, and the evidence reflects prior enmity, a conviction for criminal intimidation cannot be sustained.
- Whether a conviction for criminal intimidation can be sustained when the primary eye-witnesses are either given up or found to be interested witnesses subordinate to the complainant?
- Does prior departmental enmity between the complainant and the accused affect the credibility of the prosecution case in a charge under section 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What is the evidentiary value of defence witnesses whose testimony remains un-cross-examined by the prosecution?
- Section 506(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' This revision is directed against the judgment dated 17-10-2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad whereby he maintained the sentence and conviction awarded to appellant by Civil Judge and F.C.M., Jacobabad for the offence under section 506(2), P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For one year and to pay a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. For one month.
2. ' Briefly the facts of prosecution case are that on 14-3-2001 at 15-30 hours complainant Raja Muhammad Akram lodged F.I.R. No, 26 of 2001 under section 506(2), P.P.C. With Police Station Civil Line, Jacobabad alleging therein that he is working as Assistant Director in Social Welfare Department. Yesterday he was available in his office on duty when appellant who is working as driver in the same Department entered in his office at 11-00 hours. He asked his Chowkidar Arz Muhammad not to allow the appellant to stay in the office because it is a Government office and nobody can stay in the office during night which annoyed the appellant and he attacked upon complainant, exchanged harsh words and issued threats of killing. On commotion Chowkidar Arz Muhammad, Peon Sohrab came by running and then appellant went out from the office. The complainant narrated the story to his superior on telephone who asked him to register the F.I.R.
3. ' Charge was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. ' Statement of appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. To which he denied the allegations levelled against him by saying that he was involved on false implication and P. Ws. Are subordinate to complainant and they have deposed under his influence. He also examined defence witnesses but declined to examine himself on oath. The D. Ws. Supported the version of appellant that he never extended any threats to complainant and he was falsely implicated in the case.
5. ' Prosecution in support of, its case examined complainant Raja Muhammad Akram who produced F.I.R., P.W. 2 Sohrab, P.W. 3 Amanullah. Mashir of Wardat and arrest of appellant who also produced Mashirnama of Wardat and inspection, P.W. 4 A.S.I. Khalid Hussain who acted as Investigating Officer, On the analysis of evidence the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M., Jacobabad convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No, 28 of 2001 before learned Session Judge, Jacobabad who was pleased to dismiss the same hence this revision.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General and have gone through the evidence with their assistance. It is contended by the counsel for appellant that the evidence was not properly evaluated by both the Courts below and the same was insufficient to warrant conviction but it was full of improvements. He has further asserted that ocular testimony of witnesses is not only unworthy of credit but is full of contradictions. He has pointed out that star witness of the case, namely, Sohrab Soomro was declared hostile and another eye-witness Arz Muhammad was given up by the prosecution.
7. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported the judgments of both the Courts below.
8. It is an admitted position that the appellant was working as driver in the Social Welfare Department and complainant is working as Assistant Director. It appears from the record that appellant used to stay night in the office but he was never stopped from staying, previously in the office. From the contents of F.I.R. It seems that there is some enmity between the appellant and his immediate boss which has resulted in the aforesaid incident. It is also an admitted position that eye-witness of the case, namely, Arz Muhammad Chowkidar who was present at the time of incident was not examined by the prosecution and he was given up. The remaining witnesses examined in the case are no doubt interested witnesses and they all are working under the control of complainant. The witnesses examined by the appellant have stated that appellant never extended any threats to complainant but on this point they were not cross-examined by the prosecution. On the careful reading of evidence it appears that the appellant was involved on some enmity or not obedient to complainant.
9. ' For the foregoing reasons I am satisfied that the conviction and sentence awarded by the two Courts below are not proper. I, therefore, vide my short order dated 7-11-2001 had allowed the revision and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant. These are the detailed reasons for the same.