1. ' By this appeal, judgment dated 30-9-1999, passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East has been challenged by the appellant Khalid Baig, who was found guilty of an offence punishable under section 392, P.P.C. And was sentenced to suffer S.-I. For three years, in addition to payment of fine of Rs,1,000 in case of failure to pay the fine, he was ordered to further suffer R.I. For six months. The benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P C. Was extended to the accused.
2. ' The facts of this case in short, are that on 17-4-1997 at about 8-30 p.m. The appellant Khalid Baig and co-accused Saleem are said to have approached the General Store of the complainant being.
3. Armed with fire-arm and a dagger. On the show of arms they are alleged to have robbed the complainant of cash of sum of Rs,3,500 and ran away on a motorcycle.
4. ' It appears from the circumstances and the facts brought out by the prosecution witnesses that subsequent to the escape of two accused, on the motorcycle, an accident took place, wherein the motorcycle dashed with a bus. As a result, one of the riders of the motorcycle expired on the spot while the other got injuries. The police got the news of the accident of the alleged robbers and brought the injured culprit to the complainant for his identification whom he identified before police, but in the trial Court he stated that the injured person brought before him by the police was not the same person who had robbed him and thus exonerated the appellant accused who, according to police, was the injured accused. However, the police neither produced dead body of the other robber for the identification of the complainant nor took the complainant to the mortuary or hospital to identify the second accused.
5. ' Thus in Court the complainant did not implicate the present appellant/accused in the case of his robbery.
6. ' The other' witness examined by the prosecution comprised of P.W. Altaf, the brother of complainant Ramzan, who was sitting at the store at the relevant time. He also did not implicate the present appellant to be one of the culprits, who robbed the complainant and refused to identify the appellant as one of the accused. The remaining evidence led by the prosecution comprised of police officials, who only talked of finding of dead body as a result of an accident and in injured person but they in no way connected them with the commission of the robbery in the shop of the complainant. No other evidence worth consideration was brought on record by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the commission of the alleged robbery.
7. ' Learned counsel for the State did not support the judgment of the trial Court and very frankly stated that there was no evidence for the trial Court to have convicted the appellant. According to him, there was absolutely no evidence and no reason for the trial Court to have convicted the appellant.
8. ' I have considered carefully the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have also gone through the entire evidence and other record of the case. There is total lack of evidence before trial Court to connect the appellant with the alleged crime.
9. ' I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned counsel representing the State and find that there was absolutely no evidence available with the trial Judge to have recorded the conviction in this case against the appellant. Under the above circumstances the impugned judgment of the trial Court, the conviction and the sentence awarded to the appellant are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.