ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                                              Cr.Acq.Appeal.No.S-   335    of    2011

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

17.10.2012.

Mr. Ghulam Nabi, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Shahzada Saleem Nahyoon, A.P.G for the State.

                                    =

            This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is arising out of judgment dated 12.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Umerkot, pursuant to which seven alleged accused were acquitted in Sessions Case No.13 of 2011 arising out of Crime No.89 of 2007 registered at Police Station Umerkot, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Umerkot convicted two accused namely Taro and lady accused Shr. Moomal and sentenced them to suffer R.I for two years and also extended them benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C whereas he acquitted the accused namely Roopo, Kirshan, Lajpat, Chaman, Gobind, Shr. Jesi and Shr. Papoo u/s 265-H(1) Cr.P.C by extending them benefit of doubt.

            The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that one of the eye witness namely Shr. Wishnoo who claimed to be eye witness, has deposed in evidence that incident took place on 2.2.2007 at about 5-00 p.m when the alleged nine accused persons entered into the house of complainant and on their shouting, PWs Ram and Babu were attracted and they rescued them and in the meanwhile, accused Taro gave hatchet blow to her and she fell down and the accused took away Rs.50,000/- cash and golden ornaments.

            It is admitted by her that there are many houses located near the place of incident and the houses of PWs Ram and Babu are far away. It was also admitted that PWs Ram and Babu were his real brothers. It is also admitted by said witness that a civil suit is pending between the parties over a plot which was filed by them and the same was dismissed by the concerned Court. It is also admitted by her that accused party is cousin of her husband Bheemon. Apart from her, there is no other eye witness to depose in support of the complainant’s case. The Medical Officer, Mirpurkhas also admitted in cross examination that such type of injuries can be sustained if a person fallen from the tree etc and she also admitted that final medical certificate has no outward number and that kind of weapon used is not mentioned in the provisional as well as medical certification.

            All the accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C, have deposed that due to enmity they have been involved by the complainant.

            In view of what has been discussed above, it appears that the impugned judgment discusses all the aspects of evidence that has come on record and has critically examined the same. There appears no infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned judgment which has been passed in accordance with law and pursuant to the evidence that is available on record. I see no reason to upset the findings of the trial Court and these are the reasons of my short order dated 17.10.2012 whereby I dismissed this Criminal Acquittal Appeal.  

                                                                                                            JUDGE

Tufail