IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-47 of 2021

The State Through P.G Sindh

vs.

Kamal Lolai

For the Appellant:                            Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo,

                                                          Deputy Prosecutor General

Date of Hearing:                             07.02.2022

Date of Order:                                 07.02.2022

O R D E R

Agha Faisal, J.                     Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has assailed the Judgment dated 10.11.2020, rendered by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge / Model Criminal Trial Court, Shikarpur in Sessions Case No.169 of 2018, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. 

2.         Per learned Deputy Prosecutor General, the acquittal was un-merited as the learned trial court had been unable to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, hence, the present appeal. 

3.         Heard and perused. The learned Trial Court records that the primary plea of the accused was that the weapon was foisted / planted and it had no nexus with the accused.  In this regard it was observed that the main murder case, in which the accused has already been acquitted, was said to have been committed on 20.05.2018 while the accused was arrested on 27.05.2018 and the alleged recovery took place on 31.05.2018.It was observed that such belated recovery of the weapon raised certain doubts, which could not be addressed by the prosecution. It was further noted that even though the weapon was said to have been recovered on 31.05.2018, the FSL report demonstrated that it was received at the office of F.S.L, Larkana on 06.06.2018.The six days’ delay was not justified and the record also did not demonstrate as to where and in whose hands the weapon remained in the intervening period.  The judgment also demonstrates that the prosecution failed to examine any witness from the Malkhana to ascertain such position.  It was further noted that even the sealing of the parcel, containing the weapon, took place after lapse of ten hours and that also at the Police Station instead of the place of recovery.  The learned Trial Court concluded that in view of the demonstrable infirmities in the prosecution case no conviction was possible, hence, the accused was acquitted.

4.         The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has been unable to deconstructthefindings in the impugned Judgment and also remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity therein meriting intervention in an acquittal appeal.

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.

Judge

Manzoor