MEHAR ALI SOLANGI vs State S — 2023 YLR 1500 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MEHAR ALI SOLANGI VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---accused being public servant was charged for committing criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct---In the present case, the main witness, who was armour, had clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief that his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer---Even the said witness was not in a position to disclose the specific number or description of the weapons allegedly changed or misappropriated by the accused nor such weapons were produced by the prosecution---During his cross-examination, said witness stated that the property was not sealed at police station---although, said witness stated that entry with regard to checking of weapons was made, but the same was not produced in Court during evidence---Further, said witness had admitted that he had no certificate from any competent institution regarding checking of ammunition, however, time and again he said that he issued certificates in respect of weapons---Said witness did not produce any certificate from any Ballistic Expert in respect of the weapons which were found defective during inspection---Moreover, it was also necessary to have produced a report that those weapons were handed over to the accused complete in all respects---In the absence of such report it was impossible to attribute any misappropriation to the accused---Other witness clearly stated that he was not the eye-witness of the alleged incident---However, said witness stated that it was mentioned in the report of DSP and arms Expert while it had come in the evidence of armour that the weapons were not sent to any Ballistic Expert and he also admitted that he was not a qualified person in respect of weapons---Though, the inspection of weapons was allegedly carried out in 2008, the statement of this witness was recorded in the year 2011---Question as to why the FIR was not registered immediately and without any delay, had not been explained by the prosecution---Trial Court did not take into consideration the deposition of witness/ aSI, who had clearly stated that there was dispute between the accused and Police Constable with regard to certain bullets, as said Police Constable was demanding fresh bullets which the accused refused, which created a rift between them and thereafter, said Police Constable submitted his complaint to the RPO---Entire evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses before Trial Court revealed that none of them deposed that they allegedly had seen the accused whilst committing the offence by changing spare parts of such weapons and subsequently same were sold out or kept by him for his personal use---No one had deposed that the amount allegedly entrusted to him was in (what)shape, whether it was in cash or (in the form of) any instrument---Moreover, the use of such alleged misappropriated amount was also not found by the Inquiry Officer to believe that the accused had misappropriated the funds as well as (the) weapons allegedly entrusted to him---Even no list/charge-sheet was produced or exhibited to show that certain amount including weapons were entrusted to the accused during his posting as WHC and that subsequently (same were) misappropriated by him---In absence of any recovery or concrete cum-tangible evidence the accused could not be held responsible for the alleged misappropriation, therefore, charge under S. 409, P.P.C. was not established by the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to successfully proved the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1500 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MEHAR ALI SOLANGI VS State S. 409---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of three years in lodging the FIR---Effect---accused being public servant was charged for committing criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct---Record showed that FIR against the deceased accused was lodged after a delay of about three years---From the deposition of armour, it transpired that the subject weapons were checked in the year 2008 (even no date and month was mentioned); however, the FIR was lodged in the year 2011---For such a long period there was no explanation whatsoever---FIR must be lodged with promptitude in order to give it reliability and credibility unless such delay could be explained---FIR was regarded as the cornerstone of the prosecution case which got the ball rolling in a criminal case---If there was a flaw in lodging of the FIR, like delay in filing the same, then the same would go to the root of the case and a doubt was created in the prosecution case qua the accused, as in that case possibility of consultation and conspiracy could not be ruled out---Said delay in the present case, where the accused alleged in his S. 342, Cr.P.C. statement that the officials were inimical to him, was all the more fatal to the case of the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to successfully prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1500 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MEHAR ALI SOLANGI VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is one circumstance which creats reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.

MEHAR ALI SOLANGI vs State S — 2023 YLR 1500 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR