1. ' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---The appellant through the present jail appeal assailed the judgment dated 30-5-2011 of III Additional Sessions Judge, Malir in Sessions Case No,836 of 2010 (State v.
2. Anwar Saeed) wherein he was convicted for offence under section 392, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For three years and fine of Rs,2,000.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that on 30-10-2010, the complainant Khan Muhammad, left his house for going to his work. When he reached Radio Pakistan Ground, Quidabad at about 1230 hours, he was surrounded by three persons, two of whom were armed with TT pistols. Two of those persons robbed him of Rs,6,000 and two mobile phones. The complainant raised cries on which one of the culprits was apprehended with the help of the public and was taken to PP Khuldabad of PS Shah Lateef Town and was handed over to ASI Raza Muhammad. The accused was arrested and the statement of the complainant was recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. After investigation the challan was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate wherefrom it was sent to the Court of Session. On 2nd March, 2011 charge was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty.
4. ' In support of its case; the prosecution examined ASI Raza Muhammad (P.W.1) as Exh.3, who produced the mashirnama of arrest and recovery, 154, Cr.P.C. Statement and the F.I.R. Complainant Mian Khan (P.W.2) was examined vide Exh.4 who produced the mashirnama of place of incident.
5. Third witness S.I. Abdul Majeed Nagra, the I.O. Of the case, (P.W.3) was examined vide Exh.5.
6. Thereafter the prosecution closed its side.
7. ' Statement of the accused was recorded wherein he denied the allegations and there after judgment was pronounced whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
8. ' I have heard the accused/appellant in person and the learned AAG for the State and have perused the record with his assistance.
9. The incident took place on 30-10-2011 at around 12-30 p.m. But the same has been reported by the complainant to the police at 2-20 p.m. And that delay has not been explained at all. The complainant in his examination-in-chief has stated that three persons robbed him of cash and mobile phones but he did not specifically state that the present accused robbed him of cash and mobile phones. He has only stated that the accused present in Court has caused him butt blow on his head. It is very strange that nowhere in the record it has come that the complainant was referred to medico legal officer for examination of the injury received by him and there is nothing to prove that he has received injuries on his head. When the mashrinama of his arrest and recovery was prepared the accused/appellant was shown as armed with pistol but neither any cash nor mobile was recovered from him. The prosecution did not examine P.Ws. Zahidullah and Noor Muhammad for the reasons best known to them otherwise both were very essential witnesses to corroborate the version of the complainant.
10. It would not be .Out of place to mention here that the appellant/accused was a pauper and he has not engaged any advocate to defend him, therefore, in such type of cases where the accused are, conducting their cases themselves, trial Court should be more careful and cautious in conducting such types of cases.
11. ' This shows that the case of the appellant/accused is not free from doubt, therefore, he is given benefit of doubt. Accordingly, appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant is set aside and is acquitted from the charge. The accused/appellant Anwar Saeed shall he released forthwith if not required in any other case.