SHC sets aside life imprisonment of three in doctor murder case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has recently set aside the life imprisonment sentence awarded to three men for murdering a lady doctor as the prosecution failed to prove the charges on them.

Syed Wasi Haider, Abdul Waheed and Shah Dino were sentenced to life imprisonment by an additional district and sessions judge of District East as they were found guilty of the murder of Dr Rubina Khalid in Gulistan-e-Jauhar on November 24, 2014. According to the prosecution, the appellants along with their accomplice Noman killed the doctor during robbery while she was returning home from hospital.

The appellants’ counsel submitted that the procedure of the identification parade and the evidence of prosecution witnesses were defective and questionable. They added that these discrepancies had also been noted by the trial court. They argued that the trial court had acquitted the co-accused Noman, and the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants.

Supporting the trial court’s order, the deputy prosecutor general contended that the appellants were arrested along with the stolen articles and the prosecution had proved its case against them beyond any reasonable doubt.

After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the evidence, the SHC’s single bench comprising Justice Irshad Ali Shah observed that the appellants were arrested 20 days after the incident with the articles belonging to the deceased. It added that the complainant’s statement suggested that he was not an eyewitness to the incident.

The court highlighted that the statements of prosecution witnesses Shoaib Akhtar and Zahid Pervaiz, who had identified the appellants as the real culprits, were recorded on November 28 and December 25, 2014, respectively, with a delay of four days and over a month. It said that the prosecution had not provided any plausible explanation for such delays.

The high court noted that this delay prima facie suggested that these witnesses were included in the investigation by the police only to be presented when needed and were used accordingly.

The SHC said the appellants’ confession before the police could not be used as evidence against them. It also mentioned that the recovery of stolen gold bangles from the appellants was not overseen by a magistrate, and such an omission could not be overlooked.

The bench added that the recovery of weapons, if any, in the absence of direct evidence was not enough to be taken as conclusive proof of the appellants’ guilt.

The high court remarked that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, they were entitled to the same benefit as given to the co-accused.

The SHC set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants and ordered the jail authorities to release them if their custody was not required in other cases.