IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

                             Crl. Bail Application No.85 of 2011

                                                  

   Present

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.

 

Date of hearing             :                       26.05.2011

Date of order                            :                       26.05.2011

 

Applicant                                  :                       Muhammad Ibrahim Samo,

through Mr. Khadim Hussain Thahim, advocate.

 

Versus

 

Respondent                         :                  The State

through Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi,

A.P.G.

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J.     Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta, in Sessions Case No.279/2008 dated 07.05.2011 in FIR No.34/2008 under Section 324/427/504/109/337-A(i), F(i) PPC registered at P.S. Ketibunder, whereby the complainant has filed an application under Section 360 Cr.P.C. r/w Art. 133 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 was dismissed, the complainant has filed instant Crl. Revision application before this Court seeking set-aside and/or review and/or recall the impugned order dated 07.05.2011. The brief facts of the case as stated in the FIR is as follows:-

"Janab-e-Aala, Complaint of the Complainant is that I am Zamindar and residing at the above mentioned address, we have domestic dispute with Abdul Rehman. Today our date of hearing was fixed in Civil Court Gharo, I my son Allo, Muhammad Yaqoob S/o Saleh Muhammad, Sultan S/o Saleh, Dawood S/o Suleman all by caste Sama were going in Alto 1000 CC Car bearing No.AQS-048, which was driving by Sultan, I was on front seat, Yaqoob, Dawood and Allo were on rear seat, when the vehicle reached on bride of Jokhia drainage Nali, I saw that Abdul Rehman S/o Haji Muhammad by caste Samo having double barrel Gun and belt containing cartridges was standing side of the bride, our car became slow when Abdul Rehman made straight fire from his Gun with the intention to kill us, which hit on glass of driver side, one pallet hit driver Sultan on right side of neck and other pallets hit seats and passed from back side glass we saw that accused Abdul Rehman after abusing went away on east side of the sim nali  and blood was oozing from the injury of Sultan we went to Baghan where left Sultan in Baghan Hospital, informed to the relatives, who came there after consultation with them now have come at PS and made complaint that accused Abdul Rehman S/O Haji Muhammad by caste Samo from domestic dispute have fired upon our car with intention to kill us, injured Sultan damaged the car, complaint is for justice."

 

2.         Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that  the learned trail Court has failed to appreciate the facts on record and law involved. Per learned counsel, since the evidence of applicant has been recorded by the learned trial Court in the absence of his counsel and the same was recorded in Engish which the applicant enable to understand and neither the evidence had been readover to him in Sindhi language, hence the evidence of the applicant at the stage of the cross-examination had been recorded incorrectly. Learned counsel further submitted that in the cross-examination the complainant said the "the FIR was registered at 4:30 pm" instead of that it was recorded incorrectly that "FIR was registered at 8:00 a.m. Per learned counsel, the learned trial Court has ignored the sensitivity of the case and ignored that this human error would cause to damage the case of the applicant. Per learned counsel, the merits of the case are above then any technicalities, the human error can be correct and verified at any stage of the case. Learned counsel submitted that after considering the facts of the case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside or allowed the instant revision application.

 

3.         Conversely, the learned APG has vehemently opposed the grant of instant criminal revision application and supported the impugned order of the learned trial Court.

4.         I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. On tentative assessment of the record, it appears that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is correct and is not required any interference by this Court.

5.         In view of hereinabove facts, I am of the view that the applicant not been able to make out a case, which was dismissed alongwith listed application vide short order on 26.05.2011, and these are the reasons of the short order as mentioned hereinabove.

                                                                                    J U D G E

Nadeeem