| Case ID |
16d679dd-fe20-4a8d-9da4-d8bbe263bbc2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
S-51 of 2009 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 26, 2009 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
In the Criminal Revision Application No. S-51 of 2009, the Sindh High Court, presided over by Justice Bhajandas Tejwani, granted the applicants' request to quash the pending proceedings. The applicants, Muhammad Usman and two others, challenged the issuance of a proclamation under Sections 87 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), arguing that the prosecution's case was baseless due to insufficient evidence. The court noted that three witnesses, including one complainant and two eye witnesses, failed to provide credible testimony against the applicants. Additionally, the trial court had previously acquitted co-accused Habib and Ismail under Section 265-K of the Cr. P.C., citing similar and identical roles in the case. The submission of a no-objection statement by the complainant further weakened the prosecution's position, as it affirmed the innocence of the applicants. Taking into account the lack of substantial evidence and the acquittal of co-accused individuals, the court concluded that there was no merit in continuing the proceedings. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application was allowed, leading to the quashing of the proceedings against Muhammad Usman, Muhammad Umar, and Attaullah in Sessions Case No.203/2007 pending before the Court of the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. |
| Summary |
In a landmark decision delivered on October 26, 2009, the Sindh High Court addressed the Criminal Revision Application No. S-51 of 2009, wherein Muhammad Usman and two others sought the quashing of proceedings initiated against them under Sections 87 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) of 1898. Presided over by Justice Bhajandas Tejwani, the court meticulously evaluated the merits of the case, focusing on the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution. The applicants contended that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed, citing the ineffective testimony of three witnesses—a complainant and two eye witnesses—who failed to substantiate the allegations against them. Moreover, the trial court had previously acquitted co-accused individuals Habib and Ismail under Section 265-K of the Cr. P.C., highlighting the absence of credible evidence and similar roles in the alleged offense. The submission of a no-objection statement by the complainant further undermined the prosecution's stance, as it unequivocally affirmed the innocence of the applicants. Advocates representing both sides presented compelling arguments: Syed Madad Ali Shah emphasized the lack of concrete evidence and questioned the validity of the prosecution's claims, while Syed Meeral Shah, representing the respondents, acknowledged the deficiencies in the prosecution's case. Additionally, the Deputy Public Prosecutor (D.P.G.) underscored the findings of the police during their investigation, which identified only one known culprit and one unidentified individual, suggesting that the prosecution lacked a robust evidentiary foundation. Taking comprehensive stock of the testimonies, the no-objection statement, and the prior acquittals of co-accused, the Sindh High Court concluded that the ongoing proceedings were baseless and lacked legal merit. Consequently, the court granted the Criminal Revision Application, resulting in the immediate quashing of the proceedings against Muhammad Usman, Muhammad Umar, and Attaullah in Sessions Case No.203/2007. This verdict not only underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice by preventing the continuation of unfounded legal actions but also reinforces the necessity for the prosecution to present credible and substantial evidence to sustain criminal charges. The decision serves as a pivotal reference for future cases, emphasizing the principles of fair trial and the protection of individuals against unwarranted legal persecution. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Sindh High Court,
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Police Station Tando Allahyar
|
| Judges |
BHAJANDAS TEJWANI
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Madad Ali Shah,
Syed Meeral Shah
|
| Petitioners |
2 OTHERS,
MUHAMMAD USMAN
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE,
ANOTHERS
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 1194,
2010 YLR 13
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
561A,
87,
88
|