SHC sets aside life imprisonment of man in murder and robbery case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has recently set aside life imprisonment of a man in a dacoity and murder case stating that the prosecution had failed to prove charges.

Haris Shakeel was sentenced to life imprisonment by an additional district and sessions court that found him guilty of murdering a security guard after snatching his weapon in the Gulberg area.

According to the prosecution, the appellant was arrested by police on May 9, 2017, with an illegal weapon and during interrogation he admitted to killing security guard Mohammad Khan at a CNG station and snatching his weapon.

A counsel for the appellant denied the prosecution charges and submitted that he was arrested along with eight to 10 others from his locality by the Pirabad police that demanded bribe for their release and on refusal to pay the bribe, he was booked in the murder case.

A single bench of the high court headed by Justice Omar Sial after hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusal of evidence observed that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were not trustworthy.

The high court observed that neither had witnesses seen fires being shot and at best, the two witnesses would have had a fleeting glimpse of the assailants and it seemed unnatural that after one month and 13 days, they could with such an accuracy identify the appellants whom they had not known or seen before.

The SHC observed that no description of any of the assailants was given by either eyewitness prior to them identifying the appellant in the identification parade.

The bench observed that the investigation officer did not seize the close circuit camera footage which was deliberate lapse of investigation and such lapse raised doubt as to whether the recording would have supported the prosecution case.

The SHC observed that no authorised person of the security company was introduced as a witness nor it appeared any statement was recorded by the investigation officer that would have supported the prosecution claim.

The high court observed that no one from the security company testifying about the weapon having been assigned to the deceased had made the prosecution case further doubtful and suspicion was raised as whether the weapon was even taken away by the assailants.

The bench observed that the identification parade of the appellant also raised doubt on the prosecution case as the same was held six days after the confession of the appellant before the police. The high court observed that it would not be safe to rely solely on the identification parade in order to convict the appellant.

The SHC observed that three was no other evidence which was brought on record to otherwise corroborate the prosecution case and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The court set aside the conviction of the appellant and ordered his release if not required in other cases.