IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-84 of 2015.

 

Appellant:                Ali Akbar son of Ali Gohar bycaste lashari.

 

Through Mr.  Mehfooz Ahmed Awan advocate.

 

The State:                Through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Jatoi, Additional  Prosecutor General.

 

Date of hearing          :     21-02-2022.          

Date of decision  :    21-02-2022.                  

 

JUDGMENT

 

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- The instant Crl. Jail Appeal filed by the appellant whereby he has assailed the judgment dated 29-08-2015 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze in Sessions Case No. 280/2010 Re. The State Vs. Ali Akbar and another, offence u/s 376, 338-C, 506/2, 337-J, 201 PPC arising out of Crime No. 64/2010, registered at Police Station Padidan, thereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence u/s 376 PPC to suffer R.I for 20 (twenty) years. He was also convicted u/s 338-C PPC and sentenced to suffer R.I for 05 (five) years. He is also convicted u/s 201 PPC and sentenced to suffer R.I for 05 (five) years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only. In case of failure of payment of fine, he shall suffer S.I for one year more with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant assailed the said judgment by filing the instant Crl. Jail Appeal through Senior Superintendent, Central Prison Sukkur for his acquittal from the charge

2.     At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant is involved in the instant case falsely. The complainant Mst. Mahira and her mother Mst. Rajul were examined before the learned trial Court, but they have not implicated the appellant. The prosecution declared Mst. Mahira/victim as hostile and cross examined by the prosecution, but nothing fruitful result has come on record against the appellant; that appellant has remained for sufficient time behind the bars and still is being dragged since 2010, as such he would not press the instant Criminal Jail Appeal, if a lenient view is taken against the appellant by dismissing the instant Criminal Jail appeal and treating the sentence to one as already undergone. 

3.     On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General vehemently opposed such proposal of learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that appellant is involved in heinous offence, which is against the society and Islam.

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

5.     Record reflects that the complainant Mst. Mahira, who is also victim of the case and her mother Mst. Rajul were examined before the learned trial Court, but they have not deposed a single word against the appellant, hence Mst. Mahira was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution, but nothing incriminating evidence has brought on record against the appellant. On the contrary the complainant Mst. Mahira/victim has denied a suggestion that accused Ali Akbar was committing Zina with her. She further denied that she has pregnancy of three months, which she aborted. The complainant further deposed that her signatures were obtained by the police on a written paper and she also denied the contents of FIR. The instant Criminal Jail Appeal is pending since 2015 and the matter pertains to year 2010. During pendency of the appeal, Jail Roll of the appellant was called and as per Jail Roll, the appellant served his sentences excluding remission, which is 11 years, 08 months and 22 days and he has earned remission of 05 years, 04 months and 28 days. The appellant is rotting in jail from the date of his arrest and served out more than 17 years along with remission; therefore he should have learnt the lesson. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in order to give a chance to the appellant to rehabilitate him in his life while maintaining his conviction, the sentence inflicted on him is reduced to that of already undergone including sentence of fine amount. The Appellant is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other custody case.  

6.     The instant Criminal Jail Appeal is dismissed with above modification.

                                                                                                                                                                   Judge

 

Nasim/P.A