MUHAMMAD BUX S/O AHMED MIRJAT (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

.1.rn11 l2-t

Page No.l

\I

FR NT hr C-c ,L/

ReJ;r

IN TH E HIGH COLT RTOFS INDH AT I'ARAC HI

.dilsl n lto oI 2 24

Sikandar son of Aci;Li, by castc liatii':tr, \ iusLim, Adult Resident o[ t'illrr-gc I{ehmarullah K:rriyar, Taluka \ [Lpur sakro' District Thftta' Presentll' confi,ed At DisrricJail Thatta"'----'-'" ----Appellant/Ctur ici fhe State------ ----- ---'Respotl'1ent t I ' Crimi A eal Unde Sectio IOC ri il l

I

I \i hc c rt-ttt

I

u- o

I

s

tL>

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal APPeal No.110 of 2024 Crl. Jail APPeaI No'123 o12024

Appellant Sikandar through M/s. Riaz Ahmed Bhatti & Alahbitta, advocates in Crl. Appeal No.110 of2024

Appellant Muhammad Bux through Mr. Muneeb Ahmed Qureshi, advocate in Crl.J. APPeaI No.123 of.2024

Complainant . Akhtar A1i through i\{r. Zeeshan Ajrnal, advocate

Respondent The State through Mr. Mumtaz Ali Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General

o,-r Date of hearing 06-03:2025

ii Date of Judgment

'.L

IUDGMENT

]an Ali ]unejo, I.- This consolidated judgment disposes of Criminal. Appeal No.110 ol 2024, preferred bySikandar s/o Adal (hereinafter referred to as Appellant Sikandar), and Jail Appeal No.123 of 2024, filed by Muhammad Bux s/o Ahmed (hereinaftet referred to as Appellant Muhammad Bux), challenging the Judgment dated 18.01.2024 (hereinafter termed as "lmpugned Judgment") passed by the Court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Thatd(hereinafter referred to as the Triai Court), in Sessions Case No.347 of 202L' By the Impugned ]udgment both appellants were convicted under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 392 (robbery), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in

tL7

committing robbery), and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The Trial Court sentenced them to ten years of rigorous impiisonment on each count, along with fines ofRs.50,000/- per charge, and ordered the sentences to n:n concurrently. Additionalty, the appellants were directed to undergo tlree months of simple imprisonment in case of defautt on fines. The appellants, aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, have approached this Court seeking acquittal on grounds of alleged legal infirmities, inconsistencies in evidence, and violations of due process in the Trial Courfls proceedings. This judgm'ent shall address the merits of both appeals, the arguments advanced by the appellants, and the State's defense of the lmpugned Judgment.

2.The prosecution case, as delineated in the Trial Court's record, originates from an incident dated 13.11.2020 at approximately 22:35 hours near Quetta Hotel, Dhabeji, District ci r.t Ihatta. The complainant, Akhtar Ali fuain (PW-l), proprietor of a mobile shop and Easy Paisa business, alleged that while retumir-rg home after closing his shop, he was accosteh by two individuals on a red 1?5cc motorcycle, later identified as the S* appellants Muhammad Bux and Sikandar, accompanied by absconding co-accused Anwar and Sultan. Armed with TT pistols, the accused allegedlyrobbed him of Rs.12^5O000/- (intended for weekend hansactions) and aimobiLe phone. Upon resistance, the accused opened fu'e, inllicting gunshot injuries on

I

the comflainant's left l"g and injuring two bystanders, Muhammad fuif eW-2) and Muhammad Asim (PW- 3), who intervened.. The injured were subsequently shifted to Trauma Center Karachi for treatment. The FIR No.86/2020underSections 324, 392, 394, and 34 PPCwas registered'on't6.71..2020-three days post-incident-against "unknowr persons". The prosecut'.on's case'pivoted on:

t2h

lsl

1.Testirhonies of Injured Witnesses: PW"L, PW'2, and PW-3 consistently narrated the robbery and injuries but admitted in cross-examination that they could' not identi-fy the appellants during the incident due to darkness and first saw them in court/police custo$I. l

2.Medical Evidence: Dr' Muhammad Sabbar (PW4) corroborated the injuries through lnedical summaries .l (Exh.f.4/A-C), confirming gunshot wounds requiring vascular slrrgery and ICU b'eatment'

3.Recovery of Partial Robbed Cash: On11.72.2020,5IP Imdad Hussain (PW-s) recovered Rs.4,00,000/- from Muhammad Bux's possessioru allegedly hidden near ZBST Coilege, pursuant to a confession made dulilg police interrogation. The recovery memo (Exh'1S/I) was attested by police officials, not independent wihresses'

4.Confessional Statements: The appellants purportedly admitted their involvement during police custody, though no judicial conJession was recorded.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants primarily on circumstantial evidence, deerning the chain of events - robbery, injuries, detayed ElR, recovery of partial robbed mo and confessions - suificient to establish guilt bevond reasonabl doubt under Sections 324,392,394, and 34 PPC.

S

3.The learned counsel for the Appellant Siknndar contends that the impugned judgment is legally unsuttuioubl", arguing that the appellant was unlawfuIly arrested and falsely implicated through a staged encounter, with no identification parade conducted despite the FIR's reference to "unlorown culprits" (1,gg2 SCMR196). He further asserts that thuittiul Court relied on an inadmissible extrajudicial confession made to police (violating

t>5

lt.I

1984)' failed to comply Articles 38-39, Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order appellant with with Section g42 CL.P.C, by not conftonting|the biased investigation by recovery evidence, and permitted a the FIR and led th<i SIP/SHO Imdad Hussain, who authored corroboration {or probe. He highlights the absence of batlistic uncharged sections (324'392' seized bullets, the convictionunder and the Trial Court's 394 PPC) without defense opportunity' witnesses' failure to erroneous reliance on pending FIRs despite emphasizes procedural identify the appellant (Exh' 11-13)' He r:nder Section 164 Cr'P'C')' non-compliance (e.g', no confession and the iudgment's inconsistencies in prosecution evidence' of judicial mind' It is miscarriage of justice due to non-application prayed that this Honourable Court set aside tl-re impugned and $ant the t judgment dated 18.01'2024 acquit the appellan! GHC o legal and factual benefit of doubt in light of these cumulative l/,

F.

ilfirmities. .lli t- Buld*h 4 The leamed counsel for the Appellant Muhmnmad $,t Y\ is contrary to law and contends that the impugned judgment the case beyond doubt' facts, as *re prosecution failed to Prove material Points with key witneises contradicting each other on amount' He argues that and no recoveq/ of the alleged robbery ignored the the trial court misaPPrehended the evidence' their false implication by appellants' innocence, and overlooked police, who inflicted injudes at 'm unrelated location while asselr;s that the fabricating a non-existent encounter' Counsel entitling nighttirne incident rendered identiiication,impossibie' settled principles of the appellants to the benefit of doubt under yet the trial court criminal iustice (Stafe tt' Muhammad Aslam)' StretchedinferencesinfavoroftheProsecution,causlng a miscarriage of justice' FIe emphasizes that the jucigment as it violates Articies13, 7gg, and 209 of the Constitution' d.isregards procedural fairness and the appellants' right to a free'

t>b

t5l

fair, and speedy tia1. It is respectfuily Prayea that this dated Honourable Court set aside the conviction and sentence 18 -07 -2024, acquit the aPPellants,

5.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the he first time appellants were not identified by the respondent' and no saw the appellants at police station Dhabeji' Finally he raised objection iI tire appeals are allowed'

6, Per contra, the leamed Aciditional Prosecutor General (APG) has argued that the prosecution conclusiveiy established their the appellants' guilt through credible evidence' inctuding lawful arrest at the crime scene with incriminating recovclics (pistol, cash), corroborated by eyewirness testimonies and medical \ reports. The trial court rightly dispensed with an identification parade, as the appellants were apprehended red-handed' and their voluntary conJessior-r-recorded in accordance with procedural safeguards-remains atLmissiblei and consistent with

the evidence. The investigation lvas impartial, with no Proven GHC o malice or procedwal lapses, and the trial court meticulously l- *

confronted the appellants with all evidence under Section 342 IL o Cr.P.C., disregarding minor contradictions in witness accounts as inconsequential' The conviction under relevant penal provisions S* \{ is justifiecl by the appellants' direct invoivement, and the absenle of ballistic analysis does not 'weaken the case, given the overwhelming circumstantial anct testimoi'rial proof' The trial coufr's appraisal of evidence aligns with the "safe administration of justice," and the appellants' criminal antecedents validly rebut claims of false implication. No miscarriage of justice occurred, as the prosecution discharged its burden beyond doubt rendering the appeals melitless' The leamed APG prays for dismissal of the appeals and affirmation of the impugned judgment, upholding the conviction and sentence as lar,r'ftrl and just.

t7+

t6l

submissions Presented detailed examination of the 7. UPon a State' s Additional Ptosecutor and the by the aPPellants' counsel scrutinY of the case with a rigorous General (APG), couPled conclusions critical {indings and rational record, the following the aleged that on13.11.2020' emerge: The prosecu'cion robbed the comPlainant appellants, along with accornPlices/ were at gunPoint' The aPPellants Akhtar A1i of Rs. purPortedlv .2020, otd Rs' 4'00'000/' 1\ras arrested on18'11 During trial, the Muhammad Bukhsh' recoveted from (PW-3) Arif (PW-2)' and Asim Muhammad comPlainant (P\^{-1)' as PerPetrators ' Thg the aPPellants to identifY testified Uut iAea that theY were (PWs) exPlicitlY stated prosecution witnesses lPerPetrators of the identiJy the aPPellants as the unable to it is a of the night' Furthermore' darkness robberY due to the named in the First , were not that the aPPellants matter of record lodged DesPite the FIR being Informadon RePort fB). Officer [O) failed to the lnvestigating a'+lPn ts, agairlst unknown legal parade, whrch 1S a mandatory conduct an identification of AdditionallY, the alleged' recovery cases' requirement in such the possession of aPPellant N4uhammad H Rs. 4,00,000/- from be and, theref ore/ cannot t corroboration * Bukhsh lacks indePendent recovery was not evidence' The alleged I

considered reliable

I

nor in Presence of the persons/ witnessed by independent the denominati on' $'* $ did not record ComPlainant' The Prosecution cash' distinguishilg marks of the recovered sedal numbers' o'l' the robbery' The to link the moneY to making it imPossible asked to identifY the currencY during comPlainant was never the prosecutioiis claim. The aPPellant trial, further eroding of the time alreadlr in police custodY ai Bukhsh'lvas evidence. It is a well- of Planted recov(]iy/ raising susPicion in the absence of identification of of law that, established PrinciPle the netes bY the comPlainant, currency the allegedlY robbed has reliable. This 1egal Positicn considered recovery cannot be

lLs

f t7I

been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in o' the case of.Daniel Boyd (Muslim Name Saifullah) and another The State(1992 SCMR 196). Furthermore, the Prosecution failed to present any direct or circumstantial evidence linking the the appellants to the alleged robbery' Given these circumstances' the prosecution has not been able to prove the'charges against appellants beyond a reasonable doubt' Consequently' the ItJ

t-

of the accused. It is also an established legal principle that rhe beneft of doubt does not require the presence of muitipie

suspicious circumstances; even a single circumstance casting doubt on the prosecution's case is sufficient to justify acquittal' If to the Court finds reason.to suspect that the prosecution has failed present cledible evidence for secruing a convictior:' it is duty- bound to grant relief to the accused' This principle has been reaffirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Riaz and othets a. The State anil othets scMR1839).

g. For the foregoing reasons, the tmpugned Judgment dated 18-01.-2024, rendered by the Trial CourL is deemed legally untenable and is hereby set-aside. Consequdntly, tl're appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, Sikandar and Muhammad Bukhstr, under Sections g24, 992, 994 e.34, P.P.C. a::e overtutned. Bo'Jr the Appellants are acquitted of the charges and shall be released immediately, a

unless lawfully detained in connection with any other pending case.

E