SHC sets aside life term of doctor’s murderer

The Sindh High Court has set aside life imprisonment awarded to a man for killing a doctor killing, observing that prosecution failed to prove charges against the convict beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt.

Sheikh Hamid was sentenced to life imprisonment by an additional district and sessions court (South) for murdering Dr Saleem Ahmed, head of the pathological department of Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre, during an armed robbery.

According to the prosecution, the appellant had killed the doctor during a robbery when the victim was travelling with his wife and driver in the Gizri area. The appellant’s counsel submitted that his client was falsely implicated in the case by the police as the identification parade was conducted 13 days after his arrest. He claimed that the crime weapon was foisted upon the appellant and statements of eyewitness could not be relied upon as they were doubtful.

The additional prosecutor general said the appellant was picked out during the identification parade by the prosecution witnesses as the real culprit, and identification parade was conducted in accordance with the law. He requested the court to dismiss the appeal.

A single bench, headed by Justice Irshad Ali Shah, after hearing the arguments and perusal of the evidence, observed that there were irregularities and inconsistencies in the identification parade, which could not be overlooked as they smelt of doubt at least with regard to the manner in the identification parade was conducted.

The court observed that prosecution witness who allegedly identified the appellant during the identification parade was not examined by the prosecution and the crime weapon alleged to have been secured from the appellant was doubtful. Also, the case property was not produced before the trial court during trial proceedings due to a fire in Malkhana.

The court further observed that the doctor’s wife who was present at the time of the incident was not examined by the prosecution for no obvious reasons; besides, the doctor’s vehicle was not produced before the trial court for examination. It said that in such circumstances it would be safe to conclude that the prosecution had not been able to prove the involvement of the appellant in the commission of incident beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. The court set aside the trial court order and ordered to release the appellant if not required in other cases.