ORDER
SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR.
Cr.Jail
Appeal No:.D-79 of 2007.
Present,
Mr. Justice
Munib Ahmed Khan &
Mr. Justice
S. Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi, J.J
Date of hearing: 08.07.2009.
Appellant: Janoo @ Jan Muhammad
through
Mr. Ali Ahmed Khan Advocate.
Respondents. The State through Mr.
Sham Lal
A.P.G.
J U D G M E N T
Munib Ahmed Khan, J--- This is an appeal filed by one of the accused Janoo @ Jan Muhammad who
has been tried U/s 302,324,147,148,149 r/w S. 7 ATA in FIR No: 03/2006 of P:S
Sadhooja District Sukkur. In the instant case the complainant has reported to
the police that while he was going with
his brother and 04 other persons (total in six) then they were attacked by the people of Teghani tribe on
4.2.2006 at 0930 hours there were 29 persons of Teghani tribe armed with
Klashnikovs, Rocket launchers and some of them fired, Mehrab out of all persons
fired upon Nawab the brother of the complainant while other also fired and 04
persons from the party of complainant were injured while Nawab died at the
spot. The FIR has been lodged at 17:30 hours on same day.
2. The case proceeded before the trial
Court against two persons i.e Lashkari
and Janoo @ Jan Muhammad while 27
co-accused were declared
absconder. The learned Judge, ATC-II Sukkur formulated 05 points, after discussing them reached to
the conclusion that accused Lashkari was not the actual person but was arrested
in place of some other Lashkari, hence he was acquitted. Accused/appellant
Janoo @ Jan Muhammad was convicted along with other some absconder co-accused
for life term of U/s 302(b) r/w S. 149 PPC, he along with other co-accused was
also found guilty U/s 324 r/w S. 149
PPC and was further convicted with R.I for a period of 10 years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 5000/- each. The leanred Judge in his judgment has observed that 19
co-accused named in the FIR were not involved and were released while 10 persons namely Mehrab, Mahiwal,
Sadoro, Wahidoo, Sher Khan, Janoo @ Jan Muhammad ( appellant), Lashkari S/o
Haibat , Shanoo @ Shahnawaz, Pandhi and Abdullah were convicted for the above
term.
3. We are only discussing and taking
the matter of appellant Janoo @ Jan Muhammad who is the appellant as no other
convicted person is present before us while 19 co-accused were released by the court and 10 who were convicted in
absentia are also not available. The learned counsel of the appellant has been
pointed out and discussed that the appellant has joined as co-accused
while no role has been assigned to him. Learned counsel for appellant
submits that the appellant has been arrested from jail as he was facing trial
in some other case and in that trial he has been acquitted by the trial Court.
He has submitted that involvement of the appellant is on the basis of tribal
dispute of Chachar and Teghani and that no role has been assigned to him while
admittedly he was not holding even a stick and was merely empty handed. He has
further pointed out that the story narrated in the FIR is full of doubts
and has ever not been accepted by the
trial Court as 19 persons specially named in the FIR have been acquitted by the
trial Court, notwithstanding the fact
that those accused were holding arms
i.e K.Kov. He further pointed out that no recovery has been made while
empties of 54 Klashnikov bullets have
been recovered along with 05 cartridges and that no inspection was made to the
damages which allegedly was caused by Rocket launcher firing by one
of the accused. He submits that the complainant did not come to the Court with
clean hands but only with the motive to involve as many persons as possible
from the side of other trial and lodged FIR after 08 hours. He requested that
the appellant be released as that the prosecution has failed to involve appellant
to justify the punishment awarded by the Court.
4. On the other hand learned A.P.G. has
argued that the appellant has participated with other co-accused but he has not
denied the factual position that 19 persons out of total 34 persons named in
the FIR (i.e 29 named and 05 unidentified) have been released by the court as
the evidence of the witnesses were contrary in respect to their presence and
the role assigned to them. He states that police has rightly arrested the accused persons on the allegation
leveled in the FIR, while nothing was brought on record to show that the case
based on falsehood and that the ocular evidence is sufficient to enable the
Court which has been brought on record
to punish the accused.
5. After hearing learned counsel we
have noticed that in the FIR the complainant has given 29 names along with 05
unidentified persons and some of them were armed with Klashnikovs and one by
Rocket launcher while the caste of all the persons were Teghani. The role of
the appellant is no where but he has been named in the FIR at Serial No: 14 as
Janoo @ Jan Muhammad. From the statement which have been recorded by the
learned Court it appears that all the
04 injured witnesses were not unanimous on the involvement of the persons named
in the FIR and there is serious discrepancies whereas several persons were even
not identified and were released by the court, this sort of the evidence would
not remove apprehension from the mind that in the tribal dispute several persons can be involved instead of
actual one which has become traditional now a days. There may be some role
against some other persons but all of them have been declared as proclaimed
offender and have been punished in absentia while nothing has been brought on
record as to what role has been played by the appellant whereas several names
have not been supported as accused by the witnesses. It has also been noticed
during the course of arguments that 54 Klashnikov empties have been recovered
along with 05 cartridges but no recovery of any of the Klashnikov has been
effected nor it has been brought on record through any forensic report as to
whether these empty bullets have been fired from one K.Kov or various K.Kovs
and same is the position of cartridges. The post mortem report only shows that
there are fire arm injuries without categorization of the nature of the
injuries as to injury of pellets or the bullets. Admittedly there is some
injured persons and one has died but the evidence so far brought on record as well as contradiction
in respect of the evidence which has also been noticed by the learned Judge,
ATC-II Sukkur and led him to acquit 19 co-accused, benefit of doubt could also be given to the appellant.
Keeping in view that no role has been assigned to him while he has simply been
named in the FIR and for that motive can be assumed of tribal dispute.
6. From the evidence which has been
brought on record neither intention of
the appellant can be gathered nor his participation can be proved without
doubt. In such a situation we accept this appeal and set-aside the Judgment
dated: 17.9.2007 of ATC Court-II Sukkur Division Sukkur in respect of the
appellant Janoo @ Jan Muhammad only. He may be released if not required in any
case.
JUDGE
JUDGE.
Kalwar