IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Acquittal Appeal : Ghulam Mustafa Brohi vs.
No. S- 14 of 2021. Mian Bux &Others
For the Appellant : Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Jokhyo,Advocate
Date of hearing : 27.01.2022.
Date of announcement : 27.01.2022.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. The appellant has impugned judgment dated 03.02.2021, rendered by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, whereby the accused/ respondents No.1 to 4 have been acquitted of the charges.
2. Per learned counsel the acquittal could not be sustained as the ocular and medical evidence supported the case of the prosecution. However, the learned counsel remained unable to identify any provision of the impugned judgment in corroboration of this assertion.
3. Heard and perused. The impugned judgment appears to have carefully cataloged the evidence and upon analysis thereof concluded that no case for conviction was set forth by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge has recorded that there are serious contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence and based thereupon no conviction could be maintained.
4. The learned trial Court recorded that there are numerous inconsistencies and infirmities in the prosecution narrative,as compared with the evidence,that no conviction could be sustained. It was noted that the complainant did not mention the names and kind of weapons allegedly carried in the FIR and nor did he so depose in the evidence. On the contrary the prosecution witness Javed, who is son of the complainant, appears to have exaggerated the story and named guns, pistol and repeater, which evidence was once again contradicted by the evidence of the purported second eyewitness. It is also noted that while one witness deposed that he heard several gun shots, the other claims to have heard only one. The numbers of the villagers said to have attracted to the spot is also inconsistent within the evidence produced by the prosecution and even otherwise it is noted thatno independent person came forward to support the claim of the complainant. It is also noted that the investigation officer also failed to record statement of any local inhabitant of the village to corroborate prosecution story. The learned trial Court observed that there is significant delay in lodging of the F.I.R and also recording of 161 Cr.P.C statements of prosecution witnesses and no plausible explanation has been advanced in such regard. For the foregoing, the learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed to produce any consistent ocular count and further failed to furnish any corroborative material in such regard to merit conviction on the touchstone of the law. It was further observed that purported eyewitnesses’ account was so unreliable that they could not rehabilitate the complainant’s version. In view of the foregoing the accused were acquitted.
5. It is settled law that an accused is innocent till proven guilty and exoneration by a court of competent jurisdiction confirms the same. Such a vested right may only merit interference if the court below has disregarded material evidence, misread evidence and / or received such evidence illegally. Interference in acquittal ought not to be warranted merely because on re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could also be possible. If, however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice. The august Supreme Court has envisaged a pivotal test in such matters, being that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny, should be found as artificial, shocking and ridiculous. No such case has been made out before this Court in the present case.
6. This Court has given careful consideration to the contents of the impugned judgment and is of the view that that the appellant’s counsel has remained unable to identify any infirmity therein, meriting interference of this Court. In view of foregoing, this appeal is dismissed in limine.