2020 PLP 1387 (MLD)

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

The instant appeal questions the judgment dated 29-03-2016 passed by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Mirpurkhas in Special Case No. 04 of 2016 (The State v. Muhammad Khan and others), whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced. The operating part of the judgment is as under: "In the light of above discussion, I have reached to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case against the present accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt that on 15.04.2016 at 1:30 p.m., accused Muhammad Khan having Jeri-cane in his hand filled with patrol, Ghulam Hussain and Abid alias Muhammad Abid having matchboxes in their hands along with other 20 unknown persons came at the place of wardat, issued threats of dire consequences to PWs Muhammad Salik and Jan Muhammad and forcibly set pipeline on fire, due to which pipeline from RD-48+400 and 48+544 was burnt and damaged; therefore, I convicted all the three accused in namely Muhammad Khan, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Abid alias Abid for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 435, 506(2), P.P.C. and 6(2)(c) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentence each accused to suffer RI for Two years for offence under section 427, P.P.C., RI for Seven years for the offence under section 435, P.P.C. and fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in case of failure to pay fine amount, each accused will suffer SI for four months, all the accused are also sentenced to suffer RI for three years for offence under section 506(2), P.P.C. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in case of failure to pay fine amount, each accused will suffer SI for one month, I also sentenced all accused to suffer RI for Ten years under section 7(d) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and fine of Rs. 100,000/- each, in case of failure to pay fine amount, each accused will suffer SI for six months more, all the sentences awarded to the accused will run concurrently. All the accused are also given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. All the accused are present on bail, they are taken into custody and remanded to jail to carry out their sentence."

2. Concisely, the complainant Engineer Syed Amir Ali Shah of Irrigation Department reported at police station Mithi that on 15.04.2016, he received A Letter Dated 15-04-2016 of Asst Executive Engineer, Water Carrier Works, Mirpurkhas along with an application of Project Manager informing that they were present at site when they saw that accused Muhammad Khan having Jeri- cane in his hand and the other two nominated accused having matchboxes in their hands with other 20 unknown persons came there. They threatened the complainant party and forcibly set pipeline on fire. They again threatened the complainant party that is again the pipeline work will be started, they will damage the same again. Due to such threats of the accused persons, the work of pipeline becomes impossible, as such FIR was lodged.

3. After lodging of FIR, the investigation was carried out and then a Final Report was submitted before the trial Court. The trial Court took cognizance and after framing charge proceeded with the case, which was culminated on the conviction and sentence of the accused persons as described above.

4. We have heard arguments advanced and have gone through the available record. The learned counsel for the appellants, while arguing at length, points out certain contradictions in the depositions recorded before the trial Court. The learned DPG supports the impugned judgment by submitting that the conviction and sentence is what rightly awarded to the accused persons.

5. After hearing the arguments advanced, I have gone through the relevant record with the assistance of the learned advocates for the appellants as well as learned DPG. The prosecution witnesses are directly or indirectly under the influence of complainant. It has come on the record that the appellants were protesting about non-payment of compensation and the executing agency and their contractors were bent upon to execute the work without satisfying the villagers, whose lands are to be acquired for the project. The eyewitnesses pretend to be the witness of the incident. The incident was allegedly taken place on Friday and it has come on the record that on Friday, the work of pipe-laying was not being carried out as weekly holiday at site. It is also worth mentioning that the time of incident is exactly the same time when the Jumma Prayer is offered. We are of the view that the availability of eyewitnesses on the aforesaid date and time is highly doubtful, especially when it has come on the record that the campsite of contract was situated miles away from the place of incident. It is also come on the record that in all 11 pipes were burned while 12 pipes were saved but neither the burnt pipes nor the safe pipes were produced before the Court as 'real or article evidence'. The prosecution has produced some pieces of burnt pipes but ashes were not produced. It has also come on the record that the fire brigade was called for extinguishing the fire but no firemen or their officer was examined before the trial court.

6. We are of the view that in the existing position of affairs, the prosecution case is not free from doubt and it is settled legal principle that benefit of doubt should always go in favour of the accused persons. In such a situation, we are obliged to allow the instant appeal vide our short order dated 29.08.2017 resultantly the accused persons were directed to be released forth with if not required in any other custody case. These are the reasons for our short order earlier, pronounced. SA/M-75/Sindh Appeal allowed.