IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. D- 11 of 2017.

Present: Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh.

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito.

Appellant: The State, through Mr. Khadim Hussain Khoharo, Addl.P.G.

Respondent: Akbar alias Akoo Lashari, through Mr. Gulshan R. Dayo, Advocate.

Date of hearing: 23.5.2018.

Date of judgment: 23.5.2018.

JUDGMENT

Amjad Ali Sahito, J-. This acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (CNS), Jacobabad, in C.N.S. Case No.10 of 2014 Re; State v. Akbar alias Akoo Lashari, arisen out of F.I.R No.70 of 2014 of Police Station City, Jacobabad, registered for offence punishable under Section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, whereby the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused/ respondent Akbar alias Akoo 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 22.06.2014 the appellant was apprehended by a police party headed by S.I.P Ali Anwar Brohi from Garibabad Muhalla, Jacobabad and contraband charas weighing 1200 grams (in shape of one big and one small slab) was recovered from his possession.

3. We have heard learned Addl. 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 Addl. P.G. contended that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence according to principles of evaluating the evidence in criminal cases. Learned counsel next contended that trial Court erroneously extended benefit of doubt to respondent/ accused on immaterial and minor contradictions, which are being occurred in almost every case and that mere delay in sending sample for chemical analysis will not vitiate the trial. 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. He further contended that the accused/ respondent was falsely implicated by the police in this case with malafide intention and ulterior motives. 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 four 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. The 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 busy place where presence of independent persons could not be denied. There is also delay of four 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. Moreover, there are contradictions between statements of complainant SIP Ali Anwar Brohi and PW PC Murad Ali on very crucial point, as according to complainant the private persons were available on spot but they refused to act as mashir, but PW PC Murad Ali has contradicted him by deposing that no any private person was available at any corner of street. The testimony of witness proves that he was not available with complainant at the time of incident at place of occurrence. Both of these witnesses have also contradicted their own document i.e. roznamcha entry, which shows the time as 16-25 hours, but both the witnesses have deposed that they left police station at 16-30 hours.

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 appears no substance in the present appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.

9. These are the detailed reasons of short order dated 23.05.2018, announced by us.

JUDGE