Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 SHC 125
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Cr.Appeal 125/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur - Aurangzeb Khan (Appellant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 125. In this matter between Cr.Appeal 125/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur - Aurangzeb Khan (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.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Appeal 125/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur CITATION: 2025 SHC SUK 617 PARTIES: Aurangzeb Khan (Appellant) ORDER DATE: 03-APR-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Haider 'Ada'(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR Criminal Appeal No.S-125 of 2023 Criminal Appeal No.S-126 of 2023 Appellants. Aurangzeb KhaninCrl.Appeal : ThroughM/sNoorHassanMalikand No.S-125/2023andappellant SamandarAlishaikh,Advocate. Rashid UmerinCrl.AppealNo. S-126of2023. State. : Through SyedSardarAliShah, AdditionalProsecutorGeneralSindh. Complainant : ThroughMr.AsifAliJatoi,Advocate. BilwalAliJatoi. Datesofhearing: : 10.03.2025 DateofDecision : 10.03.2025 DateofReason : 03.04.2025 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- J U D G M E N T Ali Haider ‘Ada’,J;- By means of these Appeals, theappellants Aurangzeb Khan and Rashid Umer have assailed the Judgment dated 27.10.2023passedbylearnedAdditionalSessions,GambatinSessionsCase No.680 of 2021, being outcome of FIR No.12 of 2021 U/s 324, 337F(iii), 337F(v), 337H(ii), 148, 149 PPC registered at P.S. Landhyoon filed by appellants whereby the appellant Aurangzeb Khan was convicted and sentencedu/s324PPCtoundergoimprisonmentfortenyears(R.I) andfor u/s337F(v)hewasconvictedandsentencedtoundergoR.Ifor05yearsand as Daman of Rs.50,000/- which shall be payable to PW/injured Abdul Majeedwhileappellant/accusedRashidAliwasconvictedandsentencedu/s
2 324PPCtoundergoR.IforTenyearsandforoffenceu/s337F(iii)hewas convictedforthreeyears(R.I)andasDamanofRs.50,000/- whichshallbe payabletoPW/injuredAbdulMajeed.However,theywereextendedbenefit underSection382-BCr.P.C. 2. ThefactsofthecaseinnutshellarethatcomplainantlodgedFIRon 05.06.2021,statingthattherewasdisputebetweencomplainantBilawalAli Jatoi and accused Aurangzeb Jatoi over distribution of lands. Aurangzeb usedtoissuethreatsnottocultivatethelands,otherwisetheywouldnotbe spared.On03.06.2021,thecomplainantalongwithhiscousinsAakashAli, Shahid Hussain and Abdul Majeed were working together in the fields. It wasabout6:00p.m.AccusedAurangzebwithrepeater,SAjidAliwithKK, ZamirwithKK,RashidAliwithKK,IqbalwithKK,Gulabwithrepeater, Barkat with gun, Troohi with Repeater emerged there. They encircled the complainant party. Accused Aurangzeb asked the complainant party since theywererestrainednottocultivatethelandsbuttheydidnotstoptherefore, theywillcausetheirmurder.Sayingso,accusedAurangzebandRashidAli openeddirectfiresofrepeaterandKK,respectivelyuponPWAbdulMajeed withintentiontocommithisQatl-i-Amd.Thefireshithimonelbowofhis left arm and on thigh of his right leg. He fell down on the ground. The complainantpartyraisedcrieswhichattractedvicinitypeopleandonseeing themtheyranawaybymakingaerialfiring.Thereaftercomplainantandhis PWsshiftedinjuredatPoliceStation,Landhyoon,obtainedletterandshifted injuredtohospitalfortreatmentandafteradmittingtheinjuredcomplainant lodgedFIR.
3 3. The investigation was completed and after completing investigation the appellants were sent-up for trial. The trial Court framed the charge in whichtheypleadednotguiltyandclaimedfortrialvidetheirpleasatEx.4-A to5-Drespectively. 4. Atthetrial,prosecutionexaminedcomplainantBilawalAliatEx.4,he producedFIRatEx.5-A,PW-2injuredAbdulMajeedatEx.6,PW-3MLO Dr. Muhammad Ayoob at Ex.6, he produced letter, provisional MLC, referring letter, X-ray plates, report of radiologist, medical certificate of A.O,HospitalprivateLtd. KarachiandfinalMLCofinjuredAbdulMajeed at Ex.6-A to 6-G respectively. PW-4 ASI Riaz Hussain (author of FIR) at Ex.7,PW-5ASIMasoodAhmedatEx.8,heproducedmemoofinspecting injuries, roznamcha entries, letter, memo of visiting place of incident and recoveryatEx.8-Ato8-F.PW-6ManzoorAliatEx.9.PW-7mashirShahid HussainatEx.10whoproducedcopyofhisCNICatEx.10-A.Afterclosure of prosecution side the trial Court recorded the statement of accused and after that passed judgment as such assailed the judgment through these appeals.Hence,theseappeals. 5. Ihavecarefullyheardlearnedcounselforthepartiesandscannedthe entireevidenceavailableonrecord. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is two days delayintheFIR,asitlacksaplausibleexplanation.Thecomplainantparty receivedaletteronthesamedayoftheincident,asalleged.Thecomplainant has stated that the injured party was transported to Larkana hospital;
4 however,thereisnodocumentationsubstantiatingthisclaim.Moreover,the records from Karachi Hospital only contained a single photocopy of a certificate, indicating a lack of comprehensive documentation. There is a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the testimony of the eyewitness.Thepolicerecordedthewitnesses'statementsafteradelay,and, uponexaminingtheinjuryontherightthighasalleged,itwasdetermined that no pallet marking was available. Finally, the appellants pray for acquittal. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant as well as Learned Additional Prosecutor General contend that all witnesses provided support for their version of events. The medical evidence demonstrated that the injuredpartysustainedfirearminjuries.Thereisnomaterialcontradiction, and enmity is a double-edged sword that can be used against the accused. Finally,requesthasbeenmadetoupholdandmaintaintheconviction. 8. Heardargumentsandperusedthematerialavailableonrecord. 9. In order to properly ascertain the entirety of the case, themedical component of the case in conjunction with ocular set must be examined. In essence, the injured sustained injuries as Subject sustained injuries from firearms, specifically from repeater weapons andKalashnikov.Thedetailsofinjuriesareasunder:- 1.ALarge irregularpuncturedwoundofabout 15.0 x12.0CMnotedatleftfore-armnearelbowjoint 2.Aroundpuncturedwoundabout1.0*1.0CMnoted onrightinguinalregion.
5 Asaccordingtothemedicalevidencenoblackeningandcharringwas seenwhilethefiresweremadefromthedistanceofabout5/10feet. As per prosecution, the Investigation Officer secured ten empties of 12borecartridgesand06emptiesofKK.Itisimperativethatthisaspectbe scannedwithaviewtomedicaljurisprudence. a) The,Chapter3,MedicalEvidenceandMedical WitnessofModiMedicalJurisprudence,26 thEdition highlights the basic role of medical practitioner that they give frequently evidence as medical expert, therefore, he has to acquire the habit of making a carefulnoteofallthefactsobservedbyhim. Inthe instantcase,thedoctor'stestimonyindicatedthathe hadnotmadeapreliminaryrecordoftheexamination oftheinjuries. b) In Chapter 25, "Injuries by Mechanical Violence," of Modi Medical Jurisprudence, 26th Edition, and the text discusses the characteristics of punctured wounds. It notes that the depth of a punctured wound is greater than its length, whereas in the case of agunshot wound, the length of the woundissmallandthedepthofthewoundismuch larger. In this particular instance, uncertainty surroundsthenatureofthepuncturedwoundduetoa lack of explicit guidelines concerning the characteristics of such wounds. Additionally, the medical evidence is conspicuously silent on this pivotalissue. c) Further in supra chapter of Modi Medical Jurisprudence, 26th Edition, elucidated that Firearm woundsgenerallyproducetwowoundsorapertures, namely one of entrance and other of exit of the projectile. When the wound of entrance is present, but not the wound of exit, it means that a bullet is lodgedinthebodyexceptinthoserarecaseswherea bullet has been coughed out after entering the respiratorypassagesorlostinthestoolafterentering theintestinaltractandalsowhereabulletbycoming incontactwithabonesissodeflected,astopassout by same orifice as it entered. If a bullet gets
6 fragmented inside the body, there may be multiple exist wound and a single entry wound. It is also possibletohavemultiplewoundsofentranceandexit causedbyasinglebulletwhenitpassesinandoutof twoportionsofthebody.TheX-RayExaminationis alsodefinedandexplainedinthatchapter,thatX-Ray examination is useful in the evaluation of firearm wound: (a)Tolocatethebullet/pelletsinsidethebody; (b)To see whether any part of the bullet (projectile) is stillinthebody; (c)To locate for retrieval small fragments deposited insidethebodybyabulletthathasexisted:and (d)To identify, sometimes, the type of ammunition or weaponpriortopost-mortem (e)Toseethebullettrackinsidethebody. In this case, there is an absence of exit wounds from both injuries, whichcomplicatesthedeterminationofthelocationofcartridgecomponents or bullets within the body. It is uncertain whether this information was ascertainedbymedicalofficersandsubsequentlythesamewaspreserved. Itisimperativetonotethatthedoctor'sdepositionindicatedthatafter examination,theinjuredwasreferredtoGIMSHospitalGambatforX-Ray whilethecomplainantpartyeveninjureddidnotdisclosesuchfactintheir deposition TheX-rayreportindicatesthepresenceofmultiplemetallicdensities intheregionoftherighthipandpelvis.TheMedicalofficerwhoexamined the injury pointed that the site of injury was located in the right inguinal region. However, given the presence of distinct areas in both regions, a seriousdiscrepancywasobservedintheirappearance.
7 The inguinal Region (Groin) Located in the lower abdominal wall, justabovethethighcrease.Itincludestheinguinalcanal,whichisimportant inhernias. SofarPelvicRegionisconcerned,itreferstotheentirelower part of the torso, including the pelvic bones, reproductive organs, bladder, and rectum. It is a broader area than the inguinal region. The Medical dictionary of almost defines that Inguinal means pertaining to groin and Pelvis is the large body basin- shaped cavity formed by the innominate bonesandsacrum,containingtheprotectingthebladder,rectumandorgan of generation. Therefore, from this perspective, The medical evidence is inconsistentwithrespecttotheseatoftheinjury,therebycastingdoubton the prosecution’s version regarding the manner in which the incident occurred.Relianceisplaceduponcaseof Khalil Ahmed & Others Vs.The State, 2025 YLR 116. 10. The complainant's testimony, demonstrates a shift towards a more favorable perspective. The complainant stated that he, along with his witnessesAkashandShahid,werepresentatthelocationwheretheaccused partyperpetratedtheassault.Followingtheincident,theyproceededtothe police station to obtain a letter of medical treatment. During the entry processatthepolicestation,oneAshiqHussainreportedtheincidenttothe police and got letter as per arrival entry No.11, produced by the InvestigationOfficer.Thecomplainantdidnotdiscloseaboutthepresence oftheAshiqduringhisdeposition.TheInvestigationOfficerdidnotinclude Ashiqasawitness.However,theprosecutiondidnotcallAshiqasawitness duringtrial,despitehisstatusasthefirstinformeroftheincident.
8 11. Theocularsetattestedtothepresenceofotherwitnessesindependent of the villagers. Nevertheless, the investigative agency did not record the villagers'accountorcollecttheirevidence,aswouldberequiredtoascertain thefactsindependently. 12. Accordingtotheprosecution'scase,theenmityisself-confessed; Furthermore, the complainant asserts that the FIR pertaining to the murderofafarmerwaslodgedagainsttheirownpartybytheaccused persons.Relianceisplaceduponcaseof Muhammad Rahim Vs. Bakhat Muhammad & Others 2025 PCr.LJ 383,asitheldbyLearnedDivision BenchofLahoreHighCourtthat“Enmityisdoubleedgeweaponthat cutsbothways,if,ontheotherhand,itprovidesamotiveforaccusedto committheoccurrenceinquestion,ontheotherhand,itequallyprovides anopportunityforthefirstinformanttoimplicatehisenmity”. 13. Pursuant to the complainant, the patient was initially transported to theAgrahospitalaftergettingletterfromPolice,subsequentlytransferredto thecivilhospitalinLarkana;andthenreferredtoaKarachihospitalonthe followingday.TheComplainantdidnotdisclosethattheattendingmedical officer at the Agra hospital had referred them for an X-ray at Gambat, thoughtherecordsindicatedthatthepatienthadbeenreferredtoGambatfor X-ray.Theinjuredhasremainedcompletelysilentregardingwhetherhewas examined by a medical officer, referred to a radiologist, or transported to KarachiorLarkana.However,thedoctor,inhistestimony,statedthatatthe time of examination, the injured was conscious. It is a matter of great
9 astonishmentthat,exceptforthecomplainant'sstatement,thereisnorecord indicating that the injured was referred to Larkana, whereas the doctor testifiedthattheinjuredwaspersonallyshiftedtoKarachi.Theinjureddid not provide any details regarding the anatomical location of the injuries, which he sustained. The aforementioned case demonstrates significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case. Reliance is placed upon case of Muhammad Rahim Vs. Bakhat Muhammad & Others 2006 SCMR 1217. 14. The property in question consisted of ten empty cartridges and six emptiesofKK.Theseitemsweresecuredfromthesiteoftheincidentbythe investigationofficeron05-06-2021;andsubsequentlysentforanalysisvia road certificate dated 11-06-2021. On same day, the analyzer received the property. However, there are no records available indicating whether the property was either lawfully retained or not, as the records indicate an absenceofanyentries. 15. At the time of the site visit, the Investigation Officer maintained records of both arrival and departure. However, the arrival entry did not disclosetheformalitiesthatwerecarriedoutduringthevisit,asitfailedto include such details in the aforementioned arrival record. The rule is unambiguous in this respect. It is imperative to note that the investigation officer also secured empties; therefore, the same should be noted on the entry. The Investigation Officer further stated that the memo of place of incidentwaspreparedbyoneofficialWHC,buthewasnotpresentatthe scene,asaffirmedbyhim.TheRule22.70ofChapterXXII,VolumeIIIof
10 Police Rules 1934 provides mechanism that every article placed in store roomshallbeenteredinregisterandtheremovalofanysucharticleshallbe notedintheappropriatecolumn. 16. ThereistwodaysdelayinFIRwhilethecomplainantpartyreachedat thedayofincident,itisalsoaquestionthatwhentheinjuredwasdischarge from the Karachihospital.As,suchdelayisseriouslapse untilandunless explained but in instant case, no explanation was provided. Reliance is placed upon case ofAbdul Ghafoor Vs. The State 2022 SCMR 1527and Nadeem alias KALA Vs. The State , 2018 SCMR 153. 17. Thecomplainantpartyarrivedattheconclusionthattheinjuredhad sustainedaninjury,asevidencedbythepresenceofbloodoozingfromthe wound. This finding was affirmed by the medical officer, who acknowledged, However, the investigation agency or prosecution did not managetoprocureanyclothingfromtheinjuredtoserveasacollaborative pieceofevidence.Relianceisplaceduponcaseof Mst. Mir Zalai Vs. Ghazi Khan & Others 2020 SCMR 319. 18. Once, the Court believed the evidence and convicted the accused whileontheotherpartonsamesetofevidenceacquittedtheco-accusedon the point that they have no active role, amount to disbelieve the set of evidence,soevidenceormaterialdidnotreadinTotoandsuchdiscrepancy is highlighted. Reliance is placed upon the case reported inPLD 2019
11 Supreme Court 527 in which Honourable Apex Court has held in Para 21 as under; “We may observe in the end that a judicial system which permits deliberate falsehood is doomed to fail and a society which tolerates it is destined to self- destruct. Truth is the foundation of justice and justice is the core and bedrock of a civilized society and, thus, any compromise on truth amounts to a compromise on a society’s future as a just, fair and civilized society. Our judicial system has suffered a lot as a consequence of the above mentioned permissible deviation from the truth and it is about time that such a colossal wrong may be rectified in all earnestness. Therefore, in light of the discussion made above, we declare that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus shall henceforth be an integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases and the same shall be given effect to, followed and applied by all the courts in the country in its letter and spirit. It is also directed that a witness found by a court to have resorted to a deliberate falsehood on a material aspect shall, without any latitude, invariably be proceeded against for committing perjury.” 19. In view of above, it is established that the prosecution has failed to establishthecasebeyondanydoubtasitiswellsettledprincipaloflawthat there is not obligatory or compulsory that several circumstances creates doubt,if,anysinglecircumstancecreatesdoubtthenbenefitshouldgoesto accused. Reliance is placed upon case of Muhammad RiazVs. Khurram Shahzad & another 2024 SCMR 51. 20. I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove it’s’ case against the accused/appellants. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed.Convictionandsentencerecordedbythetrialcourtvidejudgment dated 27.10.2023 is hereby set aside and appellants namely, Aurangzeb
12 Khan and Rashid Umer Jatoi are acquitted of the charge. The appellants, who are present on bail, shall have their bail bonds cancelled and their suretiesdischargedaccordingly. 21. Theforegoingreasonsarerenderedinsupportoftheshortorderdated 10.03.2025. J U D G E