2006 PLP 1466 (SCMR)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

Leave to appeal is sought by petitioner/complainant Abdullah against the judgment dated 1-7-2002 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana, whereby Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2001 filed by respondent Rano against his conviction was allowed and he was acquitted.

2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant petition are that on 26-9-1997, respondent Rano and acquitted accused, namely, Suhno and Arbelo along with absconding accused Muhammad Sharif waylaid the complainant party when complainant was going along with deceased Abdul Rahim and his relatives, namely, Amanullah and Barkat Ali to the village of accused Suhno on an invitation. According to the case of prosecution, Arbelo and Muhammad Sharif were armed with guns while respondent Rano was armed with a Lathi. Accused Arbelo and Muhammad Sharif allegedly fired at Abdul Rahim, which caused his death, whereas complainant and P.Ws. Amanullah and Barkat Ali saved their lives by taking shelter.

3. Respondent Rano was sent up to face trial along with accused Arbelo and Suhno and absconding accused Muhammad Sharif.

4. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined (P.W.1) Dr. Abdul Hamid Mangi, (P.W.2) Saeed Khan Brohi, (P.W.3) Abdullah Jafferi, (P.W.4) Barkat Ali, (P.W.5) Amanullah, (P.W.6) Khair Muhammad, (P.W.7) Muhammad Punhal and (P.W.8) Ahsan Ahmed.

5. During trial, accused Suhno and Arbelo were acquitted as a result of compromise. On the conclusion of trial, respondent Rano was convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. 25 years as Tazir. He was also imposed fine of Rs.50,000 as compensation to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In case of default, the same was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In case of non-recovery, the respondent was ordered to suffer S.I. for six months. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him.

6. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haque, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner at length and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

7. The petition is barred by 122 days. No application for condonation of delay has been filed, as such, the same being barred by I limitation deserves dismissal on this score alone.

8. Even on merits, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference against the respondent. The findings of acquittal recorded by the Appellate Court are not only convincing but also based on sound reasons. It is well-settled principle of law that finding of acquittal can only be interfered with when the reasons of) acquittal are capricious, artificial or speculative in nature. In the instant case, the acquittal of respondents is mainly based on the ground that his participation in the crime was found doubtful. He being armed with lethal weapon neither used the same nor participated in the crime in any manner.

9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is maintained. The petition being devoid of force is dismissed on merits as well as being barred by limitation and, leave to appeal refused. S.A.K./A-152/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.