SHC sets aside life imprisonment in murder case
The Sindh High Court has recently set aside the life imprisonment sentence of a man in a murder case, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove charges.
The appellant, Mohsin-ur-Rehman, was sentenced to life imprisonment by an additional district and sessions court South for murdering a man on March 22, 2015. According to the prosecution, the appellant along with other co-accused killed Azfar who was sitting in his milk shop. A counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court had acquitted the co-accused Salman and Badaruddin from the charges but convicted Azfar in the case.
The counsel submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case by the police three days after the incident, and his name and description were not included in the FIR. He submitted that the identification parade of the appellant was doubtful and there was no recovery of the weapon from his possession.
An additional prosecutor general supported the impugned judgment and requested the high court to dismiss the appeal. A single bench of the high court headed by Justice Irshad Ali Shah after hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusal of the evidence observed that the FIR of the incident had been registered after three days of delay by the complainant without disclosing names and description of the suspects while the prosecution witnesses did not mention the same in their police statements, which was surprising.
The SHC observed that a prosecution witness, Fiza Sharif, had deposed that the deceased was her cousin and he had threatened her with showing her photos with the appellant to her parents, as a result of which the appellant killed him.
The bench remarked that the witness’s testimony which could not be relied upon as her statement was recorded five months after the incident and 11 days after the identification parade.
The high court observed that in presence of weak evidence, it would be safe to conclude that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and so he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The SHC set aside the trial court order and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant and ordered his release, if not required in other cases.
-
How Liam Payne’s Death Impacted Awareness About Mental Health -
Scientists Reveal How Sleeping Can Unlock Your Creative Potential -
OpenAI CEO Calls AI Water Concerns ‘fake’ -
Taylor Swift Expresses How Negative Body Comments Triggered Her -
Prince William Plans Bold Shake-up To Restore Public Trust Amid Andrew Drama -
Apple IPhone 18 Pro Series To Launch In Bold Red Colour: Report -
Apple Developing AI Pendant Powered By In-house Visual Models -
'Gilmore Girls' Milo Ventimiglia Shares How He Would React If His Daughter Ke'ala Coral Chose 'team Dean' -
New AGI Benchmark: Demis Hassabis Proposes ‘Einstein Test’—Ultimate Challenge To Prove True Intelligence -
NASA Artemis 2 Moon Mission Faces Unexpected Delay Ahead Of March Launch -
Kate Middleton Reclaims Spotlight With Confidence Amid Andrew Drama -
Lady Gaga Details How Eating Disorder Affected Her Career: 'I Had To Stop' -
Why Elon Musk Believes Guardrails Or Kill Switches Won’t Save Humanity From AI Risks -
'Devastated' Richard E. Grant Details How A Friend Of Thirty Years Betrayed Him: 'Such Toxicity' -
Rider Strong Finally Unveils Why He Opposed The Idea Of Matthew Lawrence’s Inclusion In 'Boy Meets World' -
Who Was ‘El Mencho’? Inside The Rise And Fall Of Mexico’s Most Wanted Drug Lord Killed In Military Operation