The Sindh High Court (SHC) has set aside the life imprisonment sentence awarded to an estate agent in a woman murder case as the prosecution failed to prove charges.
Appellant Rizwan Ayaz Khan was sentenced to life imprisonment by a South additional district and sessions court on charges of murdering a woman in the Delhi Colony area in June 2016. The trial court acquitted the co-accused Sonia, wife of the appellant, from the murder charges.
According to the prosecution, the appellant along with his spouse had committed the murder of a woman, Halima, and later handed over her four-year-old son to a welfare organisation by stating that he was found abandoned in the Sea View area. The body of the woman was found in a residential flat, which the appellant had rented out to her.
A counsel for the appellant submitted that police had falsely implicated him in the case as there was no evidence of him murdering the woman. An additional prosecutor general, however, submitted that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence and requested the high court to dismiss the appeal.
A single bench of the SHC headed by Justice Irshad Ali Shah after hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusal of evidence observed that the victim’s brother had suspected the appellant and his wife for murdering of his sister.
The high court observed that medical evidence did not elaborate the cause of death of the deceased woman and the investigation officer had also admitted that there was no eyewitness of the incident.
The bench observed that the appellant had been implicated in the case only for the reason that he had provided a residence to the deceased woman on rent and after her death, he sent her son Abdullah to a welfare organisation, which the appellant had denied. The high court observed that even if for the sake of arguments it was believed that such an exercise was actually undertaken by the appellant, the same could not be relied upon to base conviction in a case like the present one.
The SHC observed that the appellant’s wife was also acquitted by the trial court on the same ground. The high court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove charges against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The SHC set aside the trial court order and ordered the appellant’s release if he was not required in other cases.