Sindh High Court Upholds Acquittal in Explosives Case
The Sindh High Court has rejected a plea by the state to overturn the acquittal of a 13-year-old boy in an explosives case. The court observed that the minor was implicated solely due to his presence in his father’s home at the time of alleged recovery, with no concrete evidence linking him to the substance.
A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio and Justice Amjad Ali Sahito, highlighted significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a lack of credible evidence. The prosecution, according to the bench, failed to establish any connection between the juvenile and the explosives found in his father’s house.
This development follows an anti-terrorism court’s decision in March last year to exonerate Muavia. The case, registered in 2013 at Surjani Town police station, involved charges under the Explosive Substances Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act. SindhNews.com reported on the initial trial.
Bench Rules No Link Established Between Juvenile and Recovered Substance
Subsequently, the state prosecutor general appealed the trial court’s acquittal order to the Sindh High Court. The prosecution argued that approximately 10 kilograms of explosive material were recovered from the father’s house in July 2013. The primary accused had died in a police encounter, and his son was present at the residence.
The acquitted accused stated in court that he was 13 years old and a madressah student when arrested. He had reportedly spent around 12 years in custody before his acquittal, vehemently denying any possession of incriminating items and claiming to have been framed.
Investigating Officer’s Role and Case Discrepancies
The court’s order noted that the initial investigating officer had recommended the case be disposed of as “C Class,” signifying cancellation, and had no knowledge of the minor’s involvement. This deposition pertained solely to the closure against the deceased accused, not implicating the juvenile.
Crucially, the bench acknowledged that no incriminating material was recovered from the minor’s possession; he was merely present in his father’s house. The initial FIR was registered only against the father, with the minor’s name absent.
The court expressed surprise that the third investigating officer implicated the minor without collecting any evidence. SindhNews.com has previously followed similar cases involving procedural irregularities.
The bench further pointed out that the recovered explosives were never produced in court, as they were reportedly destroyed in a fire at the City Courts’ malkhana. The prosecution also failed to present independent or corroborative evidence to establish a nexus between the juvenile and the alleged offense.
Conclusion
The Sindh High Court’s decision underscores the importance of due process and the need for substantial evidence, particularly when minors are involved. The court’s detailed observations highlight critical flaws in the prosecution’s case, ultimately leading to the upholding of the acquittal and reinforcing the principle that presence alone does not constitute guilt.