SHC upholds death sentence of former sessions judge, another man in honour killing case

The Sindh High Court on Monday dismissed the appeals of a former district and sessions judge and a co-accused who were sentenced to death by the trial court in a case pertaining to honour killing.

Sikandar Ali Lashari, a former district and sessions judge, and co-accused Mohammad Irfan Khan were sentenced to death by an anti-terrorism court that had found them guilty of murdering the young son of another district and sessions judge in Hyderabad.

According to the prosecution, the former judge instructed the co-appellant and three absconding co-accused Ghulam Abbas Siyal, Barkat Lashari and Morchand, to murder Aaqib Hussain Shahani, son of another district and sessions judge, as he came to know about the love affair of his daughter Keenjhar with Shahani.

The prosecution alleged that Irfan and the absconding co-accused killed Shahani on February 19, 2014, while he was travelling with his family near the Wapda sports complex in Hyderabad.

The counsel for the appellants, Sardar Latif Khan Khosa, submitted that no accused was nominated in the FIR and the prosecution case against Sikandar admittedly did not allege his physical participation in the crime. He submitted that Sikandar was implicated purely on circumstantial evidence and no such evidence was produced that would incriminate the appellant with the charge of abetting or masterminding the crime.

Peer Asadullah Shah Rashidi, the counsel for the complainant, argued that the objective of killing was to protect the family honour. He submitted that the CDR data of Sikandar showed that he was using the SIM of prosecution witness Abdul Saleem Afridi at his own IMEI number and he remained in regular contact with the absconder Barkat, who in turn was in contact with the actual killers.

The lawyer submitted that weapons used in the crime had been found by the police on the information provided by Sikandar in the presence of two private witnesses. The empties of the seized weapons had also matched with the empties recovered from crime scene and both the forensic science laboratories reports were available on record which made the case of the prosecution strong enough.

Additional Prosecutor General Khadim Hussain argued that the motive of the murder was obvious as Sikandar was annoyed after he came to know that his daughter had been in love with Aqib. Hussain added that Sikandar had admitted in a video that he was responsible for the murder.

A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, after hearing the arguments and perusal of the evidence, observed that the mastermind of a crime means a person who is responsible for planning and organising it and in this case, it had been unequivocally proved that Sikandar was the mastermind of killing and he was an abettor without any reasonable doubt.

The high court observed that this was not the prosecution’s case that Sikandar had personally committed the murder or that he was present at the scene of offence but he was its mastermind which in fact it had proved satisfactorily. The SHC observed that the entire evidence was heading towards the direction that the murder was committed on scheming and conspiracy of Sikandar who had arranged or hired the killers to accomplish the job with the aim of satisfying his ego and vengeance.

The high court also observed that as the father of a young girl, he might be annoyed or exasperated on knowing the love affair or romantic attachment of his daughter with the deceased but at the same time he was also a district and sessions judge who had served the judiciary for a long time.

According to the bench, the sentiments of a district and sessions judge must not be like those of an uneducated person as a judge is considered to be the custodian of the law as they are to dispense justice and in no way a judge was expected to take the law in their own hands and adopt any evil design rather than the legal recourse.

The high court observed that the appellant was conscientiously acquainted and well-versed to the consequences of contravention of the law with an ultimate outcome of committing the crime but despite knowing the consequences, he became instrumental and mastermind of the murder of a son of his colleague judge with no empathy or compassion.

The bench observed that due to brutal, spiteful and acrimonious homicide, a man had lost his life in a tender age leaving behind forever grief and misery to his parents and other family members.

The SHC observed that the notorious act of honour killing also branded as karo-kari was cancerous to our society and humanity.

The bench remarked that any such crime is an act of murder in which a person is killed for his or her actual or perceived immoral deeds and comportments as such alleged depraved manners and postures may take the form of alleged marital betrayal, denial to acquiesce an arranged marriage, wanting marriage or divorce, seeming flirtatious demeanor or being raped, etc.

The high court observed that the eyewitnesses had deposed that co-appellant Irfan was the same person who had pulled out Aqib from the car and enfolded his hands from the back side and thereafter Siyal shot Aqib and fired more shots on him after he had fallen down.

The SHC observed that Irfan was equally responsible for the murder under the principle of constructive liability as he not only abetted the offence but also enabled the killer with the common intention to murder Aqib.

The bench observed that whys and wherefores led the court to a denouement and finale that the prosecution had proved the guilt of both the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and each piece of evidence including the ocular testimony against appellant Irfan, clear admission of guilt through video CD statement and revelation of material and uncontroverted facts through the CDR, had proved the communication between Sikandar and the killers within proximity of time before and after murder on the fateful day and other evidence collected and brought on record by the prosecution was providing all links making out one straight chain where one end of its noose fitted in the neck of the accused persons and the other end touched to the dead body of Aqib and no link was missing from the chain which might disconnect and break the whole chain.

The SHC dismissed the appeals of the appellants and upheld the death sentence awarded to them by the trial court.