Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 3376. In this matter between Cr.J.A 123/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - MUHAMMAD BUX S/O AHMED MIRJAT (Appellant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.J.A 123/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2025 SHC KHI 3376 PARTIES: MUHAMMAD BUX S/O AHMED MIRJAT (Appellant) ORDER DATE: 06-MAR-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ l2-t I\ .1.rn11 Page No.l FR NT C-c hr ,L/ ReJ;r IN THE HIGH COLT RTOFS INDH AT I'ARAC HI lto .dilsl n oI 2 24 t I 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 ' Crimi A eal Unde Sectio IOC \i hc I $. l ri il I I I ttt rt- u- o s c

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 Date of hearing Date of Judgment The State through Mr. Mumtaz Ali Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General 06-03:2025 06-03-2025 ii 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 tL> o,-r '.L

[21 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 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 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: tL7 ci r.t *4.. .) S*

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' 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. 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 S 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'

t>5 t ilfirmities. 4 S Articles 38-39, Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984)' failed to comply with Section g42 CL.P.C, by not conftonting|the appellant with recovery evidence, and permitted a biased investigation by SIP/SHO Imdad Hussain, who authored the FIR and led th<i probe. He highlights the absence of batlistic corroboration {or seized bullets, the convictionunder uncharged sections (324'392' 394 PPC) without defense opportunity' and the Trial Court's erroneous reliance on pending FIRs despite witnesses' failure to identify the appellant (Exh' 11-13)' He emphasizes procedural non-compliance (e.g', no confession r:nder Section 164 Cr'P'C')' inconsistencies in prosecution evidence' and the iudgment's miscarriage of justice due to non-application of judicial mind' It is prayed that this Honourable Court set aside tl-re impugned judgment dated 18.01'2024 acquit the appellan! and $ant the benefit of doubt in light of these cumulative legal and factual lt.I l/, GHC o * $,t Y\ F. t- .lli The leamed counsel for the Appellant Muhmnmad Buld*h contends that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts, as *re prosecution failed to Prove the case beyond doubt' material Pointswith key witneises contradicting each other on and no recoveq/ of the alleged robbery amount' He argues that the trial court misaPPrehended the evidence' ignored the appellants' innocence, and overlooked their false implication by police, who inflicted injudes at 'm unrelated location while fabricating a non-existent encounter' Counsel asselr;s that the nighttirne incident rendered identiiication,impossibie' entitling the appellants to the benefit of doubt under settled principles of criminal iustice (Stafe tt' Muhammad Aslam)' yet the trial court tretchedinferencesinfavoroftheProsecution,causlng a miscarriage of justice' FIe emphasizes that the jucigment violates Articies 13, 7gg, and 209 of the Constitution' as it d.isregards procedural fairness and the appellants' right to a free'

t>b t5l fair, and speedy tia1. It is respectfuily Prayea that this Honourable Court set aside the conviction and sentence dated 18 -07 -2024, acquit the aPPellants, \ 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellants were not identified by the respondent' and he first time saw the appellants at police station Dhabeji' Finally he raised no objection iI tire appeals are allowed' 6, Per contra, the leamed Aciditional Prosecutor General (APG) has argued that the prosecution conclusiveiy established the appellants' guilt through credible evidence' inctuding their 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 malice or procedwal lapses, and the trial court meticulously confronted the appellants with all evidence under Section 342 Cr.P.C., disregarding minor contradictions in witness accounts as inconsequential' The conviction under relevant penal provisions GHC l- * (' o 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. o IL

1\ras a t7+ H * * t6l of the submissions Presented 7. UPon a detailed examination by the aPPellants' counsel and the General (APG), couPled with a rigorous record, the following critical {indings The prosecu'cion aleged that emerge: along with accornPlices/ robbed appellants, of Rs. 12,50,000/- at gunPoint' Akhtar A1i .2020, otd Rs' 4'00'000/' arrested on18'11 Muhammad Bukhsh' During recoveted from Muhammad Arif (PW-2)' and comPlainant (P\^{-1)' the aPPellants as PerPetrators ' testified Uut iAea to identifY exPlicitlY stated that theY were prosecution witnesses (PWs) of the as the lPerPetrators Furthermore' it is a named in the First FIR being lodged Officer [O) failed to mandatory legal State' s Additional Ptosecutor scrutinY of the case and rational conclusions on13.11.2020' the the comPlainant The aPPellants were purPortedlv trial, the Asim (PW-3) Thg , unable to identiJy the aPPellants robberY due to the darkness of the night' matter of record that the aPPellants were not Informadon RePort fB). DesPite the agairlst unknown a'+lPn ts, the lnvestigating conduct an identification parade, whrch requirement in such cases' AdditionallY, Rs. 4,00,000/- from the possession Bukhsh lacks indePendent corroboration considered reliable evidence' witnessed by independent persons/ ComPlainant' The Prosecution did not sedal numbers' o'l' distinguishilg marks making it imPossible to link the moneY comPlainant was never asked to identifY trial, further eroding the prosecutioiis Bukhsh'lvas alreadlr in police recov(]iy/ raising susPicion of Planted established PrinciPle of law that, in the absence the allegedlY robbed currency netes bY the the alleged' recovery of of aPPellant N4uhammad and, theref ore/ cannot be The alleged recovery was not nor in Presence of the record the denominati on' of the recovered cash' to the robbery' The the currencY during claim. The aPPellant custodY ai the time of evidence. It is a well- of identification of comPlainant, the 1S t I I $ recovery cannot be considered reliable. This 1egal Positicn has

lLs t7If been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of.Daniel Boyd (Muslim Name Saifullah) and another o' The State(1992 SCMR 196). Furthermore, the Prosecution failed to present any direct or circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the alleged robbery' Given these circumstances' the prosecution has not been able to prove the'charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt' Consequently' the 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 the Court finds reason.to suspect that the prosecution has failed to 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 (2024 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 E ItJ t- case.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant