Faulty investigations damage prosecution’s case in murder cases from rural areas, observes SHC

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has questioned the police investigation criteria and registration of FIRs in criminal cases originating from rural areas with regard to instigation in killing cases.

Deciding an appeal of a man and his three sons against their conviction in a double murder case, a single bench of the high court headed by Justice Omar Sial observed that it was extremely hard to reconcile with the theory that a person who came to kill another would first vocally pronounce the reasons for his coming to kill him and then shout clear instructions to his colleagues to kill that other person while himself staying as a silent spectator.

The SHC observed that it had been noticed that such aspect of instigation was included in a substantially large number of murder FIRs especially those originating from the rural areas. The bench observed that this perhaps resulted from advice being provided to the complainant by the police station clerk who was in most cases the scribe of the FIR.

The judge observed that it appeared that including this loud intention of imminent killing and stating the reasons for the same in those very loud vocal pronouncements seemed to the clerk a sure way of conviction. The high court observed that such act of police appeared to be a ploy to spread the net wide in criminal cases.

The SHC observed that another troubling trend was police’s advice to the complainant to produce two eyewitnesses for every step in the investigation. The bench observed that such a practice was adversely impacting the dispensation of justice and the police must take steps on a war footing to improve the capacity of its investigation department in every way.

Ghulam Rind, Misri Rind, Mir Mohammad and Mubarak were sentenced to life imprisonment by a Thatta additional district and sessions court for murdering Jummo and Nazeer Ahmed on February 25, 2010.

According to the prosecution, the complainant, Abdul Karim, had alleged that on the instigation of Ghulam, Misri hit his father Jummo in his head with a hatchet while Mubarak and Mir Mohammad struck Ahmed in his head with their hatchets and fled.

The high court observed that a witness, Mureed Rind, had admitted in cross-examination that he had not seen any of the accused cause injuries to the deceased and in fact it was the complainant who had told him what had happened. The judge said that such evidence could not be relied upon.

The SHC observed that another eyewitness Mohammad Bux Rind did not assign any role to Ghulam except instigation. The high court observed that the credibility of the witness was impacted adversely at trial when he stated that immediately after the incident, he went to a marriage ceremony and did not know what transpired further.

The bench observed that two other alleged eyewitnesses of the incident had deposed that the incident occurred outside a hotel, bit according to witness Bux, it took place inside the hotel.

The high court observed that such contradictions had made it clear that the investigation officer had prepared all the documents at the police station and whatever the scenario was, one thing is for sure that the prosecution case had been adversely impacted by such glaring and material inconsistencies.

After examining the evidence, the SHC dismissed the convicts’ appeal but modified their life imprisonment to 20-year imprisonment by converting the conviction from the Section 302(b) to the Section 302(c).

The bench observed that the appellants as per jail roll had completed their sentence along with the sentence given to them in lieu of the compensation, therefore they be released from prison if not required in other cases.