SHC sets aside life imprisonment in murder case
The Sindh High Court has recently set aside the life imprisonment sentence of a man in a murder case, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove charges.
The appellant, Mohsin-ur-Rehman, was sentenced to life imprisonment by an additional district and sessions court South for murdering a man on March 22, 2015. According to the prosecution, the appellant along with other co-accused killed Azfar who was sitting in his milk shop. A counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court had acquitted the co-accused Salman and Badaruddin from the charges but convicted Azfar in the case.
The counsel submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case by the police three days after the incident, and his name and description were not included in the FIR. He submitted that the identification parade of the appellant was doubtful and there was no recovery of the weapon from his possession.
An additional prosecutor general supported the impugned judgment and requested the high court to dismiss the appeal. A single bench of the high court headed by Justice Irshad Ali Shah after hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusal of the evidence observed that the FIR of the incident had been registered after three days of delay by the complainant without disclosing names and description of the suspects while the prosecution witnesses did not mention the same in their police statements, which was surprising.
The SHC observed that a prosecution witness, Fiza Sharif, had deposed that the deceased was her cousin and he had threatened her with showing her photos with the appellant to her parents, as a result of which the appellant killed him.
The bench remarked that the witness’s testimony which could not be relied upon as her statement was recorded five months after the incident and 11 days after the identification parade.
The high court observed that in presence of weak evidence, it would be safe to conclude that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and so he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The SHC set aside the trial court order and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant and ordered his release, if not required in other cases.
-
Teyana Taylor Reveals What Lured Her Back To Music After Earning Fame In Acting Industry -
Prince William Shows He's Ready To Lead The Monarchy Amid Andrew Scandal -
Lux Pascal Gushes Over Role In Tom Ford's 'Cry To Heaven': 'I Just Wanted To Be Part Of This Picture' -
Near-blind Refugee Found Dead In Buffalo After Release By US Border Patrol -
Firm Steps In Forcing Andrew’s Hand: ‘Can No Longer Keep A Promise' -
Kenyan Man Accused Of Recruiting Men To Fight In Ukraine -
'The Wrong Paris' Star Veronica Long Shares What New Crime Series 'Blue Skies' Is About -
King Charles Remains Immersed In Work Amid Andrew Scrutiny -
Bobby J. Brown's Passing Adds To Growing List Of Celebrity Deaths In 2026 -
Prince William Fears For Andrew's Mental Health -
Paige DeSorbo Breaks Silence On New Relationship With Joe D'Amelio -
'Marshals' Showrunner Reveals If Kayce And Beth Will Cross Paths In 'Yellowstone' Spinoff -
Belgium Watchdog Launches Antitrust Probe Into Google Ads Business -
Andrew Ready To Fight Back: 'He's Very Vengeful' -
After Surpassing 100 Million YouTube Subscribers, BLACKPINK Returns With New Release -
Rihanna Sends Fans Into Frenzy With BTS Footage Of Music Making: Watch