MUHAMMAD UMAR vs VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD S

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

MUHAMMAD UMAR VS VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD S. 489-B---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Using counterfeit currency notes as genuine---Appreciation of evidence---Non-association of private witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that two fake prize bonds and fake 100 currency notes of Rs. 5000/- denomination each and 100 currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination each were recovered from the possession of the accused---There was violation of the provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C., as all the witnesses/ mashirs were Police Officials---No independent person of the locality from where the accused was allegedly arrested and fake currency notes etc. were recovered from the accused, had been associated as witness/mashir---Nothing on the record to show as to whether complainant asked any person driving motorcycle or car plying on the road near the place of incident to act as mashir and despite that nobody was prepared to become witness/mashir---On the other hand, complainant himself admitted, that he did not make any effort to procure the private person as witness---Likewise, mashiralso admitted in his cross-examination that the place of incident was thickly populated area---Said witness contradicted/belied the admission made by complainant to the effect that he did not make any effort to procure the private person as witness by admitting in his cross-examination that complainant tried to procure witness from the public but they refused---Question arose as to whose statement was taken to be true and correct---If the statement of the complainant was said to be correct then apparently there was lack of any explanation given by him as to why he did not make any effort when admittedly motorcycles and cars were plying on the road near the place of incident and the place of incident was also admittedly a thickly populated area---Again, on the other hand, if the statement of mashir was considered to be true then question arose as to whether in such an eventuality, complainant issued any notice and took any steps against the person(s) who refused to become witness/mashir, as provided under the relevant law---No such indication was available on the record---Such was clear violation of the provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

MUHAMMAD UMAR vs VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD S — 2024 PCrLJ 326 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ