IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. D- 04 of 2017.

Present: Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh.

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito.

Appellant: The State, through Mr. Yasir Arafat Seelro, A.P.G.

Respondent: Muhammad Ashraf, through Mr. Faiz Muhammad Larik, Advocate.

Date of hearing: 24.04.2018.

Date of judgment: 24.04.2018.

J U D G M E N T

Amjad Ali Sahito, J-. This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.08.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (CNS), Jacobabad, in C.N.S. Case No.19 of 2015 Re; State v. Muhammad Ashraf, arisen out of F.I.R No.15 of 2015 of Police Station Garhi Khairo (District Jacobabad), registered for offence punishable under Section 9 (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused/ respondent Muhammad Ashraf by extending benefit of doubt. The State having aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed instant appeal through Prosecutor General Sindh.

2. Precisely, facts of prosecution case are that, on 27.5.2015 the appellant was apprehended by a police party headed by S.I.P Wasim Ahmed Mirza on a road coming from Osta Mohammad adjacent to Jara Waah, Taluka Garhi Khairo and contraband charas weighing 03 kilograms was recovered from his possession.

3. We have heard learned counsel A.P.G. for the State and learned counsel for the respondent and with their assistance have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution at the trial.

4. Learned A.P.G. contended that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence according to principles of evaluating the evidence in criminal cases. He further contended that prosecution has produced trustworthy evidence in the trial Court but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and erroneously extended benefit of doubt in favour of accused/ respondent. He further contended that the prosecution had proved case beyond any shadow of doubt and the acquittal of the accused/ respondent has caused miscarriage of justice. He lastly contended that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the accused/ respondent may be convicted.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment by submitted that learned counsel for accused/ respondent argued that he was falsely implicated by the police in this case, only for the reason that he was carpenter and worked in the house of SHO and when he demanded labor charges, the SHO falsely booked him in this case. Learned counsel further contended that the witnesses examined at trial by prosecution belong to police department and no independent person has been examined, though presence of independent persons could not be denied. Per learned counsel there is delay of five days in sending the samples to the chemical analyzer; therefore, no sanctity can be attached with chemical report. He lastly submitted that the judgment of the trial Court was legal with sound reasons and as such the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence and found that the contradictions observed by the trial Court have been suitably highlighted in his judgment with regard to material points in respect of happening of the incident. Moreover, witnesses examined at trial by prosecution belong to police department and no independent person has been examined, though the alleged recovery is said to have taken place on a road, where presence of independent persons could not be denied. There is also delay of five days in sending the samples to the chemical analyzer; and nowhere it is explained that during span of such time the contraband charas remained with whom, therefore, report of chemical analyzer is not useful for the prosecution.

7. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge has rightly come to a conclusion that the prosecution could not establish the case against the respondent/ accused.

8. The impugned judgment is well founded and well-reasoned, based on proper appraisal of the evidence and thus it calls for no interference. Even otherwise, it is well-settled by the Superior Courts that the acquittal recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction, would not be disturbed until there is any misreading or non-reading of the evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice, which, as elaborated above, has not been noticed here. Consequently, there appeared no substance at all in the present appeal, as such it was dismissed accordingly by short Order dated 24.04.2018 and these are the reasons for the same.

JUDGE