JOHAN MASIH S/O ARIF MASIH (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

('l lt'tIIrl(',{'l'lr OIIl'l Ili III(il I ('Otltt'l OIt SINDII, It.,\l{,\('lIl Cr. Appeal NO. 2?? of 2422 j1_ Johan Masih

l'he State

D

ITICII ("0I II{ I OI; SINDI.I

(' t t t t t 1tr t,t i! it, tr 111_lJ g ry I t ,t: /J.

Mr,,lustice lVluhammad l(arinr l(harr Agha

I)lrtc til"Itcrtt'iug I l-0()-:10.) l

l)er'itlccl ott . It{-0()-10_'.1

.l uriplrlcl't1 uppr"ovc(l lirr' [ti:porting Iqit Nyt ('li I{'l'I Ir I C A'l'11.

('crtif recl that tlre.irrclg.ntt:nl 'r'lOrdcl is hascrl ullorl or cnLutciatc.s a prirrcil-rlc iil'liLrr 'i',r(1t-'cicL-s a tlucstinu o1'larv r.r,hich is oI lirst irrrpre'ssiorr/r.listinguisht's/ ( )r tr-r'rrlr.':; rcvulses/expllills il llrrvious ilecisiorr.

{' Stril<t: orrt r,r,lriclrcvcr is rirrt applicatrlc

I\() Il-.: - (it I'his slip is otrlv trr lrc u.sctl rr,lrc:n s(]utc action is to hc trrkcrr

(ir)I1'thc slil is userl. thc ltcadcr nrusl attach it to the t1r1r ol-llru lrr:;t llilgL- o1' thc .j ucl gurc nt.

(iii)Reader tttust asl{ the .lurlgc r.r,riting the.luclgrncnt wlrcthcr the .ludgurcrrt is appnrvcil for t'cportitrg.

(iv)l'hosc tlit'ecIiotts r.r,lrich rrc rrot to trc usecl shoulcl be t]clctr'tl.

I

q+

M{ THE HIGH CJOURT OF SINDH

AT Ift,IRACHI f\ (' (,(/ ,",'i,!,!.

-.] Criminal Appcnl irlo. ) ;- .r f 2022, JOHAN MASIH ( b

s/o ARIF MASIH Pre scn L1y confinecl ir r Malir' *J i.,, i [,

t At Karachi APPELLANT/ACCUSED I t,,l ,'u) Vn;nsus THE STATE RtrSPONDENT FII{ No: 87 I2OZA

U/S: 397 I 34 PPC

P.S: Sahil, Karactri

APPEAI, U/S. 4. I.O CRIMINAL

PROCEIFUTTE CONE

I3eing aggrievr:d and djssatisfied with tltr: impr-rglrtt:tl j r rclg;rter-r1- clated :'),')',-Olt- 2O'),',), passt:rJ Lrli l lrr-: [,eart-tt:<l IX't'n Aclditionnl Di,slr"ic:t & lit;,rirlions,Jr.rclgt: at. l(nrrar:lri lirrr"tLlr i;r St:ssign Ltrrsr: Ng. l*,i'-titl')02(i i,Ifutl Strrte V/# Johan dE other"sJ nrisirrg r;uL o1' t,'l l( No.8'7 l;:;{"r,lU IJ/s. .l!)T l'-\4 lrfiC ilL i)ulit:t: Stat-ion: -*iahil , Kan'ar:tri, therr:: iiv convit:ti ng ttre Alrpe!lat r l , irr: irr conrrir:'t.ec1 tirrcl seiTltn: rrcr:d frlr tht: otfencc: prlnistra L:le lJ / sl: llrz.,l PPC ltlr riuffr,:r It"l l'or' 03 .vr:ar-s atxl Iine Rs.10,000/'= ('l't.rt 'l'hour,sapc'l r-.)1ly) irrlLl in cic[;,tr tlt oI pavt ttent, sullt:r' t].1 ltrt' ().i llonlhs iertd t.he a []p(.jJIiln r ili t:xtertdct l bt:rte Iit r tl.tr.[r-:t' sc'.]l it't t llti2".Ii, Or.l).C acr:Lgqt:qi nilrrrL:i.r,i ..ir:haur S / u Arif Masih is; prr:tJt tt:r 'J ip .Jadl cus111cly arirl l-re is t'r'urr*rrdecJ irack 1-o jLtil rluLtrtit'jtir':; cor-1C(,'t-trr:rl with cortVir:tion w':J rr-arnt lo ilel'v("' the (,0I')\rir.:1-iorrs irllr.l

t s(-)n te tr ce si .

It is 1herefore pr-i,r.r,rrl tlrirr liiis IIon'trltt Coutt't rltir-\' Lrc pleasntl ltt r:.ail Il&p of above cris(:) frorrr ihr,, [,enrrteri IX'rll Arlrlitional l]istricl ll-; Scssior rs .J urdge al Karat.:tri tiouth and a fltet- krenr.inl; 1-l.rt Appellant/Accgsed anrl lris r:or.rrrri('il, iL rrtay bt: 5:lr:nst'd tcr :+r:'t-trsidc t-ht: irnpr.rglccl .Jurlgmetll iltrlr:rl: '-l'.!, ():', ?,0:22 or' Irirli$ itlly ul.irt';r i;rtLtl I-tilt lt':t^ .Ju4grncnl ltr- it jr.rcr ri(,r.isrr:.rrr r:li" thr: crltic iri tlit: irrttrt"r:st ol .iltt'itlr:t' urnder thr: ftlllowing la,:,t s anrl i;'6r'tntls:-

r

8t

IN THE HIGH COURT OF S INDH AT KARACHI

Prese+t:

Mr. lustice Mohanunad Kariln lilmn Aghn .f

AL APPEAL N 0.222 0F 2022

Appellanl: ]ohan Masih, s/o Arif Masih, Through Nts.

Fariyal Ishaque, Advocate.

Itesponclent: 'I'he State through Mr. IMul-ranrtnatl ItlLrirl Awan, Additional Prosecutor (retrr.t'itl, Sinclh & Mr. Mumtaz Ali Shah dc St'r-'tl Arshad Hussain Nacp'i, Addl. P.G. Sirrt{lr.

I)ate of I-learing 11.09.2024

I);rte of Jur-lgtnent 18.09.2024

IUDGMENT

Mohaurmad l{arim l{han Agha, f. Appellant Joharr Masih son t-rf Ar:ii Nlasih, \ /as trietl in the Court of IXth Adcll. l)istrict & Sessions Juclge (Soutlr) I(t'rr;rtlri irr Session Case No.1999 of 2020 arising out of FIR No.87 ot 2020 ttntitrt' Sections 397 / 34 PPC registered at Police Station Sahil, Karachi antl r'iclt'

'ILJJ

f r.rdgnrent tlaterl 22.A3.2021 he was convicter-1 ;-tntl sentencecl utttierrt'ctiotr PlrL- to suffe,r R.l. for 03 years ancl pay fine Rs.10,000/- (Rupces"l'etr"l hotts,rtrtl or-rty). ln case of tlefault in paymellt of fine he shall suffer 5l for: (t)3) rnotrths nlole. I-lowever, he was also given the benefit of Section 382-ll Cr'.P.C.

2.'I'he brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.2020 at about 0015 ltrtttrs, cornplainant alongwith his fiancde narnely Molna Liza were orr his tttotorct'clt' at IJo Deryia rrleanwhile cornplainant went'on his motorcycle to Sahil Ar.ctrui: rlear l(lral,nfuan-e-lqbal Phase-VIII, DHA Karachi where tl'rree persons tltth' t almet{ on one motorcycle came and stopped him and snatched bag o[ corlplainant's fianc€e containing mobile phone Infix Hot-8 alt-urgrt,ith SIh4 No.0331 60756ti3 anrl 0318-0267131", and also wallet of comp-,iainarnt cotttitirrirrp, ttuPlica tc colour cop), of CNIC atrt-l cash of a rnotttrt of tts.500/ - ttr(:;t tt tv lt i l t' r()ntirlirirr.rnt sarv J.rta polit:,r rrrolrile irtid slartetl shotttirrg Dal'.tr I);rlttt. ( )l :;r't,iltrr; tir+: grolltc tttut-ri1r-: lr,t,o;.rlrLi(\lts {tlt'rl itvt,.t\'.ItLl ()ll('t)(tt'sott !\'rt\.tt't'(",1r'r} t)n spcl rt'lto otr irtrlrrirt,,rlisr:1,-rsr.,d his n.:untr .ts'loltatr..tttrl ltt'itlso,litr'1,,',,',i r-L

8 r-l

pcr"sonell search and recovered clne 30 trore pistol alongwith 02 bLrllcts trtrr.l policc also reco\rerecl wallet and mobile of cornplainant fronl accttserl lohatt, c)-08-202(), thcrc{:orc (ronr plainarrt lotlged F IR against accuserl pcrsolts. On 1

I

crcclrscll Shan was arrcstcd try police at Sahil Aventtc llcar Khavalran-t'-[tllrirl Ilharsr VIlt, llFlA l(arachi arrr-l police recovered clne 32 Rer,olvcr lt'itlrorlt nunrlrcr alongr,rrith loaclecl nragazine containing two lirre br'rllets, i'tccLISt't{ irrrcstgr-l irr another" case/crime ancl admittecl his guilt rlurir"rg ittt't:stigettitrlr hcncc, the r:ornplerirrant lotlgecl thc. FIR against the trominateel accusecl pt'rsotrs.

3.After usual investigation the matter was cl'rallaned and the appellants \ ,,ere sentrup to face trial. They pleaded not guilty ancl claimed trial.

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution exatninecl sevetr (07) PlVs ancl exhibited various iterns and other rlocuments. The appellants recotdctl tlreir statcments under SectionS42 Cr.P.C. wherein they derrieci the alle.g.rtiotts levelecl against thern and claimecl their innocence. Neither of the irppell;rrrts gar/e cvirlence on oath or called any witlless in support of their clefence ci1se.

5.After appreciating the evic{ence orl record, the learuetl trial cottrl convicter-l anrl sentenced the appellant as set out earlier atrtl l1et1ce., thtt -l'[re apprellant has filecl this appeal against his conviction and senteuct. other appellant Shan was acquitted of the charse

-flrr:

6.facts of the case as well as evidence produced before the trial court fintl an elaborate mention in the irnpugnecl jullgrnent, therefore, the same arc not reproducecl here so as to avoirl duplication ancl unnecessary repetition.

7.I-earned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is innocent and that he has been falsely implicateel irr tl"ris case; that the t'.\,r' r+ritnesses are not reliable and their evidence shoulcl tre clisbelieved, tl-rat thcrc are rnater"ial contratlicti<lns in the evidence of the prosecutiorr r,vit-nesses; that there wa$ rro inclepentlent rnashir:; the pistol anc{ alleged robbecl articles \Arere foisted on the appcllant by the police ancl that for any or all of thc above reasons the appellarrt shoulcl lre accluittecl of the charge by erterrdir"rg him t]re Lrenefit of rhe doubt.

8.On tl-re other hand Learrred APG after going {lrrough the entire erriclencc of ttrre ]rrosecution uritnesses as well as other recorrl of the cirs{:l srrl-lFrrrrtetl thc irnpugrrecl jur.lgrnent. In particular, he corrtenderl that th* i;llt l,vils Iotigetl prornptl)r, the e)/e witntls-c evitlenfe lvas trr-rst urorth\,', reIiirlrlc trn,.l r-rlniir'lpnr +. irrsrririlrp atrd \A?as tri trc" lrelierre,l: that the tristol l,\rilti rr'('()\rr,rrr(l

qr

fro*r tl^re appellant on his arrest o11 the spot along with robbetl itetns irnrnediately after the robbery and as such the prosecution had proved its cerse beyoncl a reasonable doubt and tl-le appeal be dismissed' g. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as leailretl -L ApG anc{ have also perused the material available on recorcl.

10.Alrter my reassessment of the evidence on record, I find that thr-r prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable rloubt the charge against t-}rt' appellarri for rnrhich he was convicted for the follorn'ing reasons;

(a)'Ilre Sectiorr 1,54 Cr:.PC statement was locigecl 011 the spot immerljately after the incident which lead to the FII{. Lreing Iotlgetl within one hour:. Flence there is no delay in the lotlgmetrt of Llrt' FII?, leaving the appellant no time to cook up a false casc against the appellant.

(l r) The apprellant was arrested on the spot by the polir:e frour 6r|1QtI1 the stolel items flnr-1 an unlicensed pistol \ /as recovttred fl'otrl tlrt: appellalt who is narned in the prr:orttptly loclged trltt r,n'itlr the specific role of robbing tl're complainant by sl-ror,t, of filearttl. IJt'clt otherwise no specific /proven enmity has colllc ()ll recot'tl betweerr the appellant ancl the cornplainant or all\/ I)W vr'hit"lr 1vould rnotivaie hirn/thern to lodge a false case ()r givt'falst' ev ir-1ence agaiust tl're appellant'

(.,) l'he prosecutior"r's case mainly rests on tI"re eye w'itllesses trt tlrt' robtrerv ancl the irnrnediate arrest of the accused ol1 the s;rot whose evidence I sl'rall consicler in cletail below;

(i)Eye witness PW 1" Falix. He is the complainant in the case" According to his eviclence on whetr ht:

and his fianc6 Mola Liza \ rere returuiug (it1 his tlrotrtt' bike from Do Derf ia at a'bout 0015 he u'as intet'ceirtt:t1 by another motorbike with 3 persorl o11 it at I(ht'-t:-Lrarr Iclbal PIrase VIII DHA who stoprpetl thetrt untltrl' sltrtvt' of firearl:ts arms and snatchecl the ha*d [rag, o' his fiancd (Mola L,iza) wl-rich coutained a tnolrile plrtrtrc atrd also snatched his wallet which contaitrt:ti a t-olor copry of l'ris CNIC aut{ casl'r. The police mobilc rt:acltt,:,{ anrl caught the accused who was on fotlt u'lttt alstr namecl his acquitted co-accuseci autl ol1Ll uttkttort't-t person aS lreing iuvolveci in the rclbl-ret't,. [)olir'tr t recovered the robbetl iterns ancl a pristol il'otl flrt' accuserl.

This eye witness is an indepentlent wituess. llc hitr.l trtt relationship with the accusecl and no ill r,vilJ or t:ttt-ttitt' with hinr so ari to involrre l-rim in a false ct-lso. t-lis pr:r:rnprtly 1odi5er"1 S.154 Cr.PC statetnt'nt \{rils t'tol nratt.ri;rlJtr inrirt'ovetl uPoll durinll thr: c()tlrstl ol hin 1 Page 3 of 6

r

s(

evi1]ence. I-Ie was not rlamaged durirrg a lengthli cl'oss exarnination. The items which were robbecl from him were lecovered r,t hen the accusecl was arrested on tlte spot together with an unlicensed pistol hcuce tht' + question of misitlentification tloes uot arisc. Irurthtlr" it cloes not appeal to logic, reason or COmmonsL'llSC tlrat the accused who the complainant clid not ktlott' r.t'oultl be for-rnd with the cornplainauts copy colour CNIC unless he hacJ rtti:bed it along with his I finr.{ [ris "n'allet' erridence to he reliable, trust worthy aud cotriitlt'lrct' inspirirrg anrl I trelieve the salne arrd place reliatrce otr it.

(ii)Eye witness PW 2 Mona Liza wht'r \,vas rt,ith tlrc complainant at the tirne of the robbert' c01'1'(rhorer tes the cotnplainant in all tnaterial respects. Sht' to rtras att inclependent wituess who hatl 11o reasotr to falstrlv irtrplicate the accusecl in the crirne. IJel S.161 Cr'.['(-' statement was made within a dav of tJre itrcitlcttt rtrtl her erridetrce was not tnateriallV improvctl frotl lht' salrle rvhich l also fincl to be trust wc-rrth1" r'cliable anti confidence irrspirirrg aud hence I Lrelier,'e hcr tlvit{t'llt't' ancl place reliance on it.

(iii)Eye witness PW 3 Muiahid Iqbal. Accorditr51 to his evirlellce he was otr patrol ancl w,heu hel rcacltc,l I(lryaban-e-lclbai DFIA at about 0015 hout's hc' hcirt'tl one person shouting l)aku, f)aku who infortlcd lrirrl of the incident and therr he was alrle to grab holtl ttl' the accuser{ while he was trlrllg to rnake his esca}r(' goocl on foot rn hilst the other two persolls tl1.tr-ic their' escape good. The accuser,l irrforrnecl lrim that ltis ttatlt' was Toham frotn which a pristol atrd rotrbetl itenrs \4rert' recovered. The accuserl also tolrl him the traurt' t-rf his CO-aCCLlser,l Shan whO was art'estetl two dtrtrs l.tter. IIt: recordetl tlre complaiuauts S.154 Cr.PC st.rtetnetrt ()lr the spot.

Adrnitteclly this e)/e witness who arrester-1 the ac'cutset.l on the spot with the unlicensecl pistol ancl re(:r-rt,cl"cr1 items was a police officer. I-Iowever he har-l tro ill i,r,ill or enmitv with the aprpellant and as sttch he n()l' c-utv other police witness l-rad ally reason Lu fa lsclt' implicate the appellant in this case. For" instauce [-,v foisting the pistol on him. Uncler these circutnstatlct's I it is settlecl by now that the erri<1euce of policrr nitnesses is as goocl as ally otl-ier rtritttt'ss. [n tlrls respect reliance is placerl on the casc of Mrrstaq Ahmed V The State (2020 SCMR 47-t).Thtts, I [rt'lir'r't' the errir-lence of this police eye witness as rvell as thr' I(l anrl ot']rer police witnesses rt'ltt-r wel'e not tlt'lttt'ri clu r:ing cro$,q exami uation.

T'hu:;, I iirrd the er,irler,ce of tlris vvitttt'ss lo [r,' ")r.- rr:Ji;ri-rle l-rrrst lvrrrthv anr"l confidenr:c irrsl-ri rinll ;rtrtl Llclit,rvr tlrr s;ulr:, ,,

s1

It is vvell settlerl by now that I can couvict the accusetl tltr tl-lc evicience of a sole eye witness proviclecl that I fintl his/ hi'l' evirlence to be trust worthy, reliable and confidencc irrspirinil and in this case I have founcl the evidence of three eye witnt:ss ttr be trust rvorthy, relialrle and confidence inspiring especialli' irr respect of the correct identification of the appellant rt,lttr -a cornmitterl the robbery by show of arms and who was arrestctt on the spot along with robber-l iterns aucl as such l Lrelievc tht' salne anrl place reliance their eviclence . Iu thi.s respect reliattct' is placer-l on the cases of Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2(X)h L)17\, Niaz- SCMR 1,857), Farooq I(han v. The State (2008 SCIvIR ud-f)in and another v. The State and another (2011 SCMIT 725) Muharnmad Ismail vs. The State (2077 SCMR 713) artd Qasirn 'l'heir Shahzad and another v The State (2023 SCMR 117).

evir-lerrce is also of goorl qualitv and it is settled Lry'ltorn/ that it rs not the length of the eviclence which is t'lf importatrcc lrr-rt its quality.

I-Iaving believed the eviclence of the three eye u,itllesses ns t'o tlrt' robberv of tlre cornprlainant and his fiancf atrrl the recot,el"t' t-rl the unlicensed pistol fi'orn the accttsecl I turn to cotrsjrler lht: corroborative/supportive evidence whilst keeFing iu riierv tlrat it was hck{ in the case of Muharntnad Waris v. The State (2008 SCh4R 784) as under;

"Corrohorntiott is onhl n nila o.f cmttiott nnd is rtrrl tt rtrlt o.f lmu nnrl i"f tlrc erye witncss u(cottt'tt is fomtd /o [rr' rclinble nnd trust ruortltll tlwrtt is hsrdhJ nn! nrcd lo lotri,. .for nny co rroltor ntiott

(.1) That the pistol used in the r:ol',bery was recovererl from thtr accuserl when he was arrested on the spot along witlr the rol'rlretl iterns.

(") That all the PW's are consistent in their eviclenc€ atlr1 Lr\/et1 if there are some contradictions in their evideuce I cotrsidcr thrrsc: contradictions as rninor in nature and not material atrrt certailrlt' not of suclt rnateriality so as to effect the prosecutiotr ca.se atrLl the cr:nviction of the appellant. In this r"espect reliatrce is prlat:c'rl on the cases of Zakir Khan V State (1995 SCMR 179i) rttrrJ I(hadirn Hussain v. The State (PLD 2010 Sttpretle C ou r'l 669).The evirlence of the PW's provides a Lrelievn hlc corroborated unbroken chain of events from the conrplaitrrtrt ancl his fiancd going out on a motor Lrike riele to tht' lreach t, r them being intercepted by three others on a motol tril<r' and robbed at gtrn point to thc police arresting the accuserl on tlre spot with the unlicensecl pistol anr-l iterns u,hich hacl itrst L-rt't'rr

I

robtrert form the accuserl.

(f)It is true that t'here was no inclepenclent rnashir hower,er it h;r:-i now become a judiciallv recognizecl fact that in strcl'l like carit':i independent nrembers of the public do not vt,Attt to involr,r' themselves anc{ as suc]r today the fact that there il'c lr(') inrlepcndr:nt-rnashir's is not of huge significallce espcciallv tr,lrt'tt the eve witness er,,ir-ience is be]ieved anrl tltc r'\,t-'r,r'itttcl;sos.lrt inrlepenllelt wittress*=.,

Pergc 5 ol 6

&e ll

(e)The fact that the appe[ant's co-accuser-1 was acquitterl of thc charge is of no assistance to the appellant as his case was o11 a diffeient footing. Namely, whilst the accused was arrestecl ()rr the spot the .o-u..,lsecl Shan made his escaPe gootl antl wils -t" arresie.l on the staternent of another co-accused (the aFpellarrt) and co-accuserl a few clays later and Sllan was shor,r'u to tht' complainant before the identification parade which tnacie thtr identification paracle of no legal value. Furthermore no stoleu items were r*.or*recl frorn co-accused Shan at the tirne of his arrest.

(h)Ulcloubtedly it is for the prosecution to prove its case against the accuseci beyond a reasonable doubt brrt I have also consideretl the tiefence case to see if it at all can caste doubt on or clent tl'tt: prosecutiol case. The defence case as set out by the aprpellant'l'ht: in iris 5342 Cr.PC staternent is sirnply false implication' appellant clicl rrot give evidence or1 oath or call a single r.1eft'trct: witrress ir-r supporf of his clairn of false irnplicatiorr. T'hus, in tht-r face of reliable, trust worthy and confitience inspriring e)r1: witness evidence and other supportive/corroboratirze evitlt'nct: r-liscussed above I disbelieve the defence case as alt after thorrght which has not at all dentecl the prosecution case.

11.Thus, basecl on the above discussion, I find that the prosecutiou llas provecl its case against the appellant beyoncl a reasonable cloulrt for thtr offenct: for. wllich he has been convicted ancl senteucetl in the itrrp-rugtrt.d jurlgment antl as such his appeal is dismissed.

E lfl- *rol 7+

t

Page 6 of 6