Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 SHC 89
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Criminal Appeal 11/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana - Shahban Sanjrani (Appellant)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 89. In this matter between Criminal Appeal 11/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana - Shahban Sanjrani (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: Criminal Appeal 11/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana CITATION: 2025 SHC LAR 2635 PARTIES: Shahban Sanjrani (Appellant) ORDER DATE: 03-OCT-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ Judgment Sheet IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANO
Criminal Appeal No.S-09 of 2024 (Shahban and others v/s. The State)
Criminal Appeal No.S-10 of 2024 (Naseem v/s. The State)
Criminal Appeal No.S-11 of 2024 (Shahban Sanjrani v/s. The State)
Appellants : 1. Shahban son of Muharam 2. Naseem son of Sonaro 3. Hazoor Bux son of Bach Ali All by caste Sanjrani Through Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate.
Complainant : Mst. Hazooran Lashari Through Mr. Zafar Ali Malghani, Advocate.
The State : Mr. Nazir Ahmed Bhangwar, Deputy Prosecutor General, Sindh.
Date of Hearing: 03.10.2025 Date of Judgment: 03.10.2025 …………………………………………………………………………..
JUDGMENT …………………
Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro J. I, propose to decide of the fate of the captioned appeals against conviction, through t his common judgment as all the cases stemmed out of a single transaction of murder charge and involve common evidence, facts and law. In Criminal Appeal No.S-09/2024 appellants Shahban, Naseem and Hazoor Bux were tried by the Cour t of learned Additional Sessions Judge -I/Model
2
Criminal Trial Court, Jacobabad, (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.216/2023 (Re- The State v/s. Shahban and others) arising out of F.I.R. No.86/2022, registered with Police Station Mouladad for offence punishable under sections 302, 114, 148, 149 P.P.C . The appellants vide judgment dated 29.02.2024 were convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I for life as Ta ’zir and burdened to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lac) each to the L.Rs of deceased in terms of section 544-A Cr.P.C, in fault of payment of compensation to further undergo S.I for one (01) year. In Criminal Appeal No.S-10 of 2024 appellant Naseem Sanjrani, was tried by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Jacobabad, vide Sessions Case No.218/2023 (Re - The State v/s. Naseem) arising out of F.I.R. No.04/2023, registered with Police Station Mouladad for offence punishable under sections 23(i) & 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten (10) years with fine of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousands), in case of non -payment of fine amount to further undergo S.I for six (06) months vide judgment dated 29.02.2024 . In Criminal Appeal No. S-11 of 2024 appellant Shahban Sanjrani was tried by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Jacobabad, (Trial Court) vide Sessions Case No.21 7/2023 (Re - The State v/s. Shahban) arising out of F.I.R. No.0 3/2023, registered with Police Station Mouladad for offence punishable under sections 23(i) & 25 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten (10) years with fine Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousands); in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo S.I for six (06) months vide judgment dated 29.02.2024. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C was also extended to the appellants. (The judgment dated 29.02.2024, shall hereinafter be referred as to “the impugned judgment”)
2. It is pertinent to mention that the sessions case No 217 of 2023 (The State Versus Shahban) and sessions case No 218 of 2023 (The State Versus Naseem) arose out of the FIRs registered against the appellants in recovery of weapons cases. The evidence of witnesses in recovery and murder case was common, therefore, all the appeals are proposed to be decided by this common judgment.
3. The facts of the prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. No.86/2022 are that Complainant Mst. Hazooran Lashari lodged FIR on 26.12.2022 at 1500 hours alleging therein that on 24.12.2022, she along with her son Javed Ahmed aged about 25/26 years, brother -in-law namely Budhal, his son Eiddan were standing near house. It was about 01:00 P.M, when accused every one namely Waseem armed with K.K rifle, accused Shabir @ zulfiqar, Imran, Babar, Shahban, Ilyas,
3
armed with TT pistols, accused Hazoor Bux, Hussain Bux all by caste Sanjrani came from eastern side. On arrival accused Hazoor Bux and Hussain Bux instigated other accused to commit murder of Javed Ahmed, as he took away their girl. On their instigation, accused Waseem fired K.K rifle shot at Javed which hit on his hand, accused Shabir @ Zulfiqar, Imran and Babar fired TT pistol shots at Javed which hit him on front side, accused Shahban, Naseem caused fire arm injuries to Javed on his chest, accused Illyas caused fire arm injury to Javed on waist. On sustaining fire arm injuries Javed fell down the ground while yelling. Fire shot reports and commotion by complainant party attracted villagers. Upon seeing villagers coming, accused went away towards their houses along with respective weapons. Complainant party saw that Javed had sustained firearm injuries on his ribs, chest, waist, above left hands through and through and blood oozed from wounds and he expired away at spot. Complainant party informed to police of P.S Mouladad about incident. Police arrived there, conducted necessary formalities, removed dead body of deceased to hospital. After post -mortem and funeral ceremony of deceased complainant approached police and lodged FIR.
4. Facts of prosecution case as portrayed in F.I.R. No.03/2023 and 04 /2023 are that the Complainant ASI Abdullah Mirani lodged two separate FIRs on 12.01.2023, at 1030 hours alleging therein that he along with subordinate staff left police station for patrolling. During patrolling, at about 0840 hours they arrived near village Sikander Brohi where received spy information that accused Shahban, Naseem and Hazoor Bux, wanted in FIR No.86/2022, u/s 302, 311, 148, 149 PPC were standing at paka b ridge. O n such information they proceeded to pointed place, it was about 0900 hours , when complainant party reached at link road leading to Vakro, near paka bridge . Police party saw that three persons standing there, who upon seeing police party tried to slip away, but were apprehended on spot. Due to unavailability of private witnesses, PC Javed Ali and PC Ghulam Nabi acted as mashir. On enquiry, apprehended accused disclosed their names as Shahban S/o Muharram Sanjrani, Naseem S/o Sonaro Sanjrani and Hazo or Bux S/o Bagh Ali. On body search of accused one unlicensed TT pistol with empty magazine was recovered from accused Shah ban and one TT pistol with empty magazine was recovered from accused Naseem. Accused Hazoor Bux was found empty handed. Accused Shahban and Naseem disclosed that recovered weapons were used in commission of murder of Javed on 24.12.2022. Thereafter, recovered weapons were sealed on spot and such memo was prepared in presence of witnesses. Police came to police station along with secured weapons and arrested
4
accused, two separate FIRs bearing Crime No 03 and 04 of 2023 were recorded against an offence punishable under section 23 of Sindh Arms Act 2013.
5. The investigation took its course, investigation officer found sufficient incriminating material against the accused and sent them to stand trial before the court of law , the case was ultimately transferred to the learned trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.
6. The appellants were indicted for charge in referred sessions cases separately, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charge was framed separately but common evidence was recorded in all the cases.
7. At trial prosecution examined PW-1 Complainant Mst. Hazooran, PW-02 mashir/eye witness Budhal , PW-03 Dr. Sohail Soomro , PW-04 ASI Abdullah Momdani, PW-05 ASI Talib Hussain , PW-06 PC Ghulam Nabi Khoso, PW-07 PC Ghulam Nabi Sinyanch , PW-08 SHO Saeed Ahmed Jumani PW - 09 Tapedar Bashir Ahmed , P.W-10 SIP Saifal Jakhro, learned prosecutor closed the s ide of prosecution for evidence. in offshoot cases PW 04 ASI Abdullah and PW 7 PC Ghulam Nabi were examined.
8. The statements of the accused/ appellants were recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein they profess ed innocence; however, did not opt to examine themselves on oath or to lead any evidence in defense.
9. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties through their counsel convicted the appellants as aforementioned.
10. Mr. Habibullah G. Ghori Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is quite unbelievable as the incident took place on 24.12.2022 at 01:00 p.m. , whereas F.I.R. was lodged after two days on 26.12.2022 at 03:00 p.m. He argued that there was no explanation for d elay in lodging FIR. He argued that per own contention of the prosecution, that the police were informed about the incident promptly. He contended that the police came to the place of incident promptly, inspected the dead body, prepared inquest report, removed the dead body to the hospital for autopsy, but the complainant did not disclose the facts of the incident to the police. He contended that the parties were inimical to each other, therefore, false implication of the applicants throu gh
5
consultations and deliberations was more than a mere possibility. He further submits that appellant Shahban and Naseem were arrested on 12.01.2023, whereas the recoveries were allegedly a ffected from their possession through a joint recovery memo. He contended that the joint recovery memo is not admissibl e in evidence. He further submits that police again inspected the place of incident, after registration of F.I.R. on 26.12.2022 secured empty shells of TT pistol and K.K. from the scene of offence, wher eas it is an admitted fact that the police also visited the place of incident on 24.02.2022 but did not secure empty shells. He further submits that the investigation in the case was conducted prior to the lodgment of F.I.R., as such was in violation of law and police rules. The incident had taken place in broad day light in a village, but no independent person was cited as witness. He argued that all the witnesses were interested and closely related to the complainant. He further argued that P.W Eidan being co-mashir and eye-witness was not examined and he was given up therefore, an inference is drawn that had he been examined, his evidence would have gone averse to the prosecution case. He contended that the blood-stained earth was collected from the place of incident on 26.12.2022. He argued that the alleged recovered empties were sent for the forensic analysis on 19.01.2023 after the alleged recovery of the weapons on 12.1.2023 as such forensic reports were manage d. He further argued that the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on the material points; as P.W -1 Mst. Hazooran has deposed that after sustaining injuries, the deceased was alive, but was in critical condition, P.W-2 Budhal deposed that dece ased Javed died instantaneously. He further submits that the ocular evidence was in conflict with the medical evidence as the P.W-3, M.L.O Dr. Sohail deposed that the deceased sustained pellet injuries, meaning thereby that the deceased sustained injuries through a gun type weapon, whereas per prosecution case, all the accused were armed with rifle d type weapons and they caused injuries to the deceased through T.T. Pistols and K.K. Counsel further contended that the place of incident is also doubtful as the P.W - Tapedar Bashir Ahmed had deposed in evidence that the place of incident was situated in an abandoned canal, whereas per prosecution, the incident had taken place at the door of the house of complainant in the common street of the village. He prayed that t here are serious misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record, therefore, the appellants may be acquitted of the charge. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the case law reported as 2019 SCMR 129 (Abdul Jabbar v/s. The State), 2025 SCMR 45 (Muhammad Akhtar and others v/s. The State and others), 2024 SCMR 1811 (Imran alias Mani v/s. The State), 2024 SCMR 1427 (Muhammad Hassan and another v/s. The State and others), 1995 SCMR 1345
6
(Tariq Pervez v/s. The State), 1995 SCMR 1030 (Muhammad Irshad and another v/s. The State) and 1999 SCMR 1034 (Asadullah and another v/s. The State).
11. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor General so assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitte d that the accused have committed murder of a young boy, son of the complainant by causing firearm injuries in presence of his mother. He argued that there is no ill -will on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons as the mother will not substitute the real culprits. He further submits that contradictions in the prosecution evidence are minor in nature and occurred due to passage of time, which is a natural phenomena. He argued that the alleged incident had taken place in the mon th of December, 2022 and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded in the month of December 2023. He further submits that it is prerogative of the prosecution to examine any number of witnesses and non recording of evidence of P.W Eidan in no manner favour ed defence as evidence of Eidan was in same line as deposed by P.W-1 Hazooran and P.W 2 Budhal. He further submits that six empty shells of T.T. pistol and one empty shell of K.K rifle were secured from the place of incident . He contended that the recovered weapons were sent for the forensic analysis, which matched with the recovered empty shells. He argued that the delay in registration of F.I.R. was plausibly explained as the young boy was done to death by the appellants, complainant was busy in post burial rituals. He argued that the prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination, but remained unison on material points and nothing fruitful came in favour of the appellants. He argued that seven injuries were sustained by the victim and empty bullets equal in number were recovered from the place of incident, which confirmed the prosecution version. He argued that the difference of the place of incident and the sketch so prepared by the Tapedar was of no consequences as it was a corroborative piece of evidence and did not tell the names of accused persons, therefore, any discrepancy in the site map cannot render the prosecution case doubtful. He further argued that the joint recovery memo was prepared as the accused were jointly arrested and the weapons were recovered from their possession, which were sealed separately. He contended that the police officials were as good witnesses as the people from public, therefore, non - association of private witnesses i n the recovery proceedings were not fatal to prosecution case. He argued that there was no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Judgments, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was properly appraised by Learned Trial Court. He prayed for maintaining the conviction.
7
12. Heard counsel for the parties and appraised the evidence available on record.
13. Admittedly, the incident had taken place on 24.12.2022 at 01:00 PM near the house of the complainant, which w as situated at a distance of 13/ 14 KM from police station . Per narration in the F.I.R., complainant had informed the police about the incident promptly and police arrived at the place of incident at 03:00 PM on same day. Police started investigation of the case, inspected the dead body at 03:00 PM, prepared inquest report, collected last worn clothes of deceased at 1800 hours on 24.12.2022 and sealed the same in presence of the witnesses Budhal and Eidan. Per inquest report the information of the incident was conveyed to police at 02:00 PM on the same day. The dead body was taken to hospital for autopsy at 04:00 PM. Per prosecution record police remained in company of complainant party from 02:00 PM until 06:00 PM in the evening on the day of incident, but the details of the incident were not g iven to the police. The FIR was recorded on 26.12.2022 with a delay of about two days and no plausible reason was offered for such delay, thus an inference can be drawn that FIR was lodged with deliberations and consultations . Such delayed FIR created serious doubts as to veracity and correctness of the prosecution version. According to the investigating officer (I.O.), he along with other police officials reached at the place of the occurrence upon receiving an information regarding the incident by phone that accused Shahban Sanjrani and others had committed the murder of Javed Ahmed. That was the first information, which was entered in the relevant register maintained in the police station. The investigation officer PW 5 ASI Talib Hussain in his evidence produced Entry No 10 dated 24.12.2024 of daily diary of police station (Exhibit 16 A page 147 of paper book) wherein the name of only one accused Shahban transpired, meaning thereby that initial ly only accused Shahban was nominated. This information was the complaint of a cognizable offence for incorporation in 154 CrPC register. Police started investigation without recording FIR. Inordinate delay of more than 50 hours in lodging of FIR created doubt in the prosecution story, more particular when in the initial report only one accused was charged and later on the number of assailants increased to nine. The explanation furnished for the delay too was not plausible as the complainant and prosecution witnesses remained in company of police party for whole th e day. In absence of any explanation furnished by the complainant Mst. Hazooran and witnesses for not disclosing the facts of the incident to police on the very day, an inference is drawn
8
that they were not present at the spot and had they witnessed the incident, on arrival of the police they could have straightaway narrated the occurrence and charged the accused for commission of the murder. It can be safely held that the occurrence has not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the complainant and PW Budhal. More particularly when the accused were residing in the same village and were well known to the complainant party.
14. This view finds support from the dicta laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Waqas Ahmed Versus The State reported as 2025 S C M R 1087, wherein it has been held that:
7. In this case the occurrence took place on 03.07.2009 at about 3.00/4.00 AM which has been reported by complainant Muhammad Ali (PW.7) at 07.00 AM, after a delay of 04 hours, if counted fr om 04.00 AM or 03:00 AM respectively. No explanation, much less plausible, has been furnished by the complainant for the said delay. It is settled law that unexplained delay in lodging FIR creates a doubt in the prosecution's case and its benefit has to be extended and construed in favour of the accused. In case titled, Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 64), this Court has held that in absence of any plausible explanation, delay in lodging of FIR is always considered to be fatal as it casts suspicion on the prosecution story. In case of Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428) this Court has observed that delay of more than one hour in lodging the FIR give rise to the inference that occurrence did not take place in the ma nner projected by prosecution and the time was consumed in making effort to give a coherent attire to the prosecution's case, which hardly proved successful. Same is the view of this Court in case of Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan (2010 SCMR 105).
15. Prosecution evidence was riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies. PW 01 Complainant Mst. Hazoora deposed that on sustaining injuries deceased was alive and died later on. PW 2 Mohammad Budhal deposed that deceased died on spot instantaneously. PW 1 Mst Hazooran and PW 2 Budhal deposed that deceased sustained three fire shot injuries on front side through and through, two fire shot injuries over chest, one fire shot injury over belly and one fire shot injury over hand. Per Autopsy report deceased sustained all five injuries over and below the chest. In the present case, it is alleged that accused persons
9
launched attacked upon the deceased and cause d him fire shot injuries from a distance of 8 to 9 paces, the complainant party ha s specified the seat of injury against all the assailants. It is humanly impossible to furnish individual account of the location of each fire shot on the person of the deceased and direction of each fire shot with exactitude. The material discrepancies in the prosecution case create doubt which ought to be resolved in favor of the accused.
16. This view finds support from the dicta laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Riaz and others versus the State and others reported as 2024 S C M R 1839, wherein it is held that:
13. From the above-stated facts and circumstances, it is abundantly clear that in this particular case, the prosecution version is burdened/ loaded with major discrepancies, which create serious doubts about its authenticity. The prosecution version with regard to the manner of killing, the medical evidence and the recoveries, contradict each other on material points creating serious cracks in the prosecution version. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any convincing material to establish that it was the appellants who had committed the occurrence. It is an established principle of law that to extend the benefit of the doubt it is not necessary that there should be so many circumstances. If one circumstance i s sufficient to discharge and bring suspicion in the mind of the Court that the prosecution has faded up the evidence to procure conviction then the Court can come forward for the rescue of the accused persons as held by this Court in Daniel Boyd (Muslim N ame Saifullah) and another v. The State (1992 SCMR 196); Gul Dast Khan v. The State (2009 SCMR 431); Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652); Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129); Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others (PLD 2019 SC 64) and Muhammad Imran v. The State (2020 SCMR 857). As the prosecution has failed to prove its case, we find there is no need to ponder the plea of alibi raised by the appellants in the defence
17. It is pertinent to underline that the medica l evidence did not lend support to the prosecution case regarding the kind of weapon used in the commission of crime. It is a settled law that medical evidence is just a corroborative piece of evidence which does not identify the assailant. At the most medical evidence is a supporting piece of evidence because it may confirm the ocular evidence with
10
regard to the receipt of the injury, its locale, kind of weapon used for causing the injury, duration between the injury and the death. It is case of the prosecution that deceased was fired upon by K.K and pistols which were rifled type weapons , deceased sustained injuries over chest and other parts of the body. Per deposition of PW 03 Dr Sohail deceased sustained pellet injuries meaning thereby that the gun type weapon was used in the commission of crime. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the MLO had favored the defence under extraneous considerations, but it is an admitted position and matter of record that PW 03 Dr Sohail was not re -examined to c larify this ambiguity . Even no any application was filed before Learned Trial Court complaining that the PW 3 Dr Sohail was won over by the defence. I f prosecution considered that the witness was won over, it was better to give up the witness. If prosecution thought it was done deliberately, it could have been rectified by conducting re-examination of the witness by putting him suggestion that he was won over. The postmortem report, the statement of the doctor and his opinion do not support the prosecution case regarding kind of weapon used in the commission of crime. It is a settled principle of law that documentary evidence carries with it a presumption of truth, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the postmortem report and the evidence of the doctor, which proves the fact that the deceased did not sustain injuries of pistol or K.K. weapons.
18. Articles 132 and 133 of the Qanun -e-Shahadat Order, 1984 deal with examination of a witness and the different stages of the evide nce of a witness. Articles 132 and 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 read as under:
"132.…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.