SHC upholds death sentence of man who murdered UTP at Malir court

The Sindh High Court on Friday dismissed the appeal of a convict and upheld his death sentence in a murder case.

Kifayatullah had been sentenced to death by an anti-terrorism court for murdering an under-trial prisoner, Khushdil Khan, at the Malir model court on December 11, 2020.

According to the prosecution, the appellant killed the under-trial prisoner, who was being prosecuted for murdering his son Ahsan Ali, as he wanted to take revenge for the murder of his son.

The appellant’s counsel submitted that he was falsely booked by the police as the deceased was involved in numerous criminal cases, including the murder of his son, and it could not be said who killed the prisoner as the appellant was not seen in the close-circuit camera as shooter.

He said there was contradiction in medical evidence and oral evidence about the number of bullets received by the deceased, and the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant.

The additional prosecutor general said the prosecution had successfully proved its case by examining the prosecution witnesses, who deposed that Kifayatullah had fired on the victim in their presence. He said there was no major contradiction between the statements of the complainant and the prosecution witnesses, and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by the court. He requested the court to dismiss the appeal.

A high court division bench comprising Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, after hearing the arguments of the counsel, observed that in the present case three eyewitnesses fully supported the case of the prosecution. The court observed that it is established on the basis of oral evidence of eyewitnesses that the appellant used the pistol for murdering Khushdil Khan, and it was further corroborated by the recovery of the crime weapon at the spot when the appellant was caught red-handed.

The court observed that all three eyewitnesses were independent having no relations with the deceased, witnesses or the appellant; therefore, their evidence cannot easily be discarded and being direct in nature cannot be overridden by the video evidence, which is only supportive in nature and at the very least confirms the presence of the appellant in the court premises on the day of the incident.

It further said that the motive was always a double-edged weapon and no doubt the previous enmity could be a reason for the appellant to commit the alleged crime, but it could equally be a reason for the complainant side to falsely implicate the appellant in the case of a previous grudge.

The court observed that on scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution, it has been established that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence. It observed that incident was a daytime incident and coupled with the recovery of the crime weapon. It said the appellant was arrested red-handed on the spot with no mistaken identity and three eyewitnesses fully supported the case of the prosecution.

The court observed that the prosecution proved its case against appellant and dismissed the appeal, upholding the death sentence.