IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,  KARACHI

 

Crl. Jail Appeal No. S- 274 of 2013.

 

Ali Muhammad son of Abdul Lateef…………………….….……...Appellant

 

Versus

 

The State……………………………………..………..….........…Respondent

 

Nemo for Appellant

Ms. Rahat Ehasan, Adl.P.G.

 

Date of hearing & Judgment :       04.07.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

 

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-274 of 2013 (titled as Ali Muhammad son of Abdul Lateef versus The State), through which the judgment dated 22-08-2013 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge-VIII, Karachi East in Sessions Case No. 426/2013, has been called into question, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 392, 34 PPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default shall further suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month more.

 

2.                            The factual matrix of the case is that on 30-01-2012 at about 20:30 hours, complainant Naveed son of Mohammed Arif lodged FIR at PS Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. He alleged in his FIR that on 23-01-2012, he was going through rickshaw towards Kharadar by way of New M. A. Jinnah capital Road. At about  21:30 hours, when he reached at New M. A. Jinnah Road, Kabootar Chowk, Boundary of Mazar-e-Quaid, Karachi, suddenly two accused persons came and on the show of weapon snatched his mobile phone China X-88 XTEL and cash amount of Rs. 5000/- from him and went away.

 

3.                            After lodging of FIR, the investigation was carried out, and after completing the investigation, the police submitted the final report against the appellant. A charge was framed against him to which he denied and pleaded trial.

 

4.                            After framing of charge, the prosecution was required to prove the guilt of the accused from the evidence available with them. The prosecution examined three witnesses with the following details:

i.

PW1

ASI Ghulam Qadir (Ex-5) who produced an attested copy of the Memo of Arrest and Recovery (Ex-5/A), FIR (Ex-5/B) and Memo of Site Inspection (Ex-5/C)

ii.

PW2

HC Liaquat Ali (Ex-6), he is the marginal witness of memo and verified the same.

iii.

PW3

Complainant Naveed (Ex-7), who described the incident and verified the FIR and his signature on it.

iv

PW4

SI Muhammad Pervaiz (Ex-8) who is investigation officer, and described the entire investigation conducted by him. He produced the attested copy of FIR No 53/2012 (Ex-8/A).

 

After the closure of side by the Prosecutor, the accused recorded their statements under Section 342 of Cr.P.C., but neither he preferred to be examined on oath and nor to produce a defence witness. As such trial Court passed the impugned judgment and awarded sentence to the appellant as stated aforesaid.

5.                            The appellant has filed the instant appeal from Jail and after filing of the appeal, it was adjourned for some dates. Meanwhile, a Report/Jail Roll was called, which was received and from the same it transpired that the appellant has been released from jail after completing his sentence with remissions awarded to him. As the appellant could not be served, therefore, learned APG was directed to argue the appeal on the merits so that it could be decided on merits. The learned APG read the depositions and from the facts narrated in the depositions, she submits that the case of prosecutions is proved beyond reasonable doubt. She points out that the appellant was identified by the complainant in the court and robbed articles were also recovered from him.

 

6.                            After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned APG, I have gone through the records and proceedings of the trial court. In the instant matter, the deposition of complainant Naveed is vital and infected, he is the star witness of the prosecution case. During recording of his statement, he has described the entire episode in detail. He identified the appellant present in the court as the same person and he also identified his China Mobile phone is the same. The appellant cross-examined this important and vital witness and he remained firm in respect of all the important points describing the incident. All the other witnesses of the case are police officials and they have also described the entire prosecution case with details. The investigation officer has described the complete investigation and he has clearly stated that the appellant during interrogation has admitted his guilt and he has also admitted robbery committed by him and his co-accused near Mazar-i-Quaid. Regarding mobile phone, he has admitted that he had snatched the same from the scene of offence. According to him, the appellant was arrested in another case and at the time of arrest he has disclosed that the recovered mobile was snatched by him from M. A. Jinnah Road near Mazar-i-Quaid. The investigation officer disclosed that when the EMI number of mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused / appellant was checked, it was found that the number is the same which has been reported by the complainant Naveed of the instant case. According to investigation officer, after such disclosure the appellant was arrested in the instant case and then he was identified by the complainant as his culprit.

 

7.                            I am of the view that sufficient and confidence inspiring evidence was not only collected by the investigation officer during the investigation, but the same was properly presented before the trial court. The witnesses examined before the trial court, including the complainant remained firm on the vital points of evidence. The deposition of complainant's confidence inspiring not only because of the fact that the appellant was identified by him in the court as one of the culprits, but also the 'real evidence' in the shape of a recovered mobile phone fortified the contention of the complainant as the EMI number given by the complainant after lodging of FIR and the EMI number of recovered mobile phone matches, which is a strong corroborative piece of evidence. Another aspect of the case is important; the complainant has not given the name of the appellant in FIR but he later on identified him after his arrest. This fact negates the existence of animosity between complainant and appellant.

 

8.                            I am of the considered view that the prosecution has established the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, as such he was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court and there exists no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial Court regarding conviction and sentence awarded to him. In the existing position of affairs, I have no hesitation to declare that the judgement of the lower forum is in accordance with the law and there is no need to interfere in the judgement of the learned trial Court, which is maintained. Resultantly, the instant appeal is dismissed. As the appellant, has already served out his sentence; therefore, no further action is needed. The instant jail appeal is dismissed and these are the reasons of my short order dated 04.07.2017.

 

J U D G E