JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No.S-14 of 2020.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

23.12.2021

                        Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J;- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal appeal are that the appellants allegedly with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed murder of Wajid Ali, by causing him fire shot injury on his neck and then went away by causing kicks and fists blows to complainant Hakeem, PWs Mir Dost and Asif Ali, for that they were booked and reported upon by the police and on due trial, they were found guilty for the above offence and were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for life and to pay compensation of Rs.500,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased for an offence punishable u/s. 302(b) PPC, by learned 1^st Additional Sessions  Judge/MCTC, Qamber, which has been impugned by the appellants before this Court by preferring the instant criminal appeal.

2.        It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that they being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its dispute with them over the landed property; and the evidence of the prosecution being doubtful in its character has been believed by learned trial Court without lawful justification; therefore, they are entitled to their acquittal by extending them benefit of doubt.

3.        None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. However, learned Addl.P.G for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal appeal by contending that they are vicariously liable for commission of incident.

4.        I have considered the above arguments and have perused the record.

5.        As per complainant Hakeem and PW Mir Dost, the appellants came at the place of incident with rest of the culprits, and on their instigation, accused Allah Rakhio (still absconding) caused fire shot injury to Wajid Ali, who by sustaining the same on his neck, fell down and died, then the appellants and others went away by causing them kicks and fists blows. Nothing has been brought on the record in shape of mashirnama etc; which may suggest that the complainant and his witnesses actually were caused kicks and fists blows by the appellants and others at the time of incident. PW Asif Ali is not examined by the prosecution. The parties admittedly are disputed over the landed property. It was night time incident; therefore, the involvement of the appellants in commission of the incident on the basis of vicarious liability and/or under the pretext that they have caused kicks and fists blows to complainant and his witnesses, obviously is appearing to be doubtful, therefore, benefit of such doubt could not be denied to them on the basis of recovery of the weapons, which they are alleging to have been foisted upon them under the pretext that they were having the same at the time of incident.

6.        In case of Muhammad Mansha Vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex court that;

“4. Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted".

7.        In view of above, the impugned judgment is set aside, consequently, the appellants are acquitted of the offence for which they were charged, tried and convicted by learned trial Court; they shall be released forthwith in the present case, if are not required to be detained in any other custody case.

8.        The instant criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE