The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the appeal against life imprisonment of a man convicted in a murder case, observing that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellant.
Imtiaz Ali was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Thatta additional district and sessions judge for murdering Nasarullah over a property dispute on October 29, 2017.
According to the prosecution, the complainant, Barad, alleged that his family had a dispute over land with Yousuf and others who used to give him death threats.
The prosecution had maintained that the complainant’s brother Nasarullah and a man, Akhtar Hussain, went to Sakro city for purchasing some household articles where Imtiaz attacked Nasarullah with a dagger.
The victim later succumbed to injuries.
A counsel for the appellant submitted that the conduct of the witnesses was unnatural as they had contradicted each other on a number of points. The counsel submitted that the appellant was alone, whereas, the complainant party comprised four persons but they neither succeeded in catching him nor rescuing the deceased, due to which the case was doubtful.
He submitted that the evidence showed that the handle of the knife was made of brass but the report of the chemical examiner showed that it was made of iron.
He submitted that the matching of blood group of the deceased with the blood on the knife had not been carried out so it was unclear whether or not the blood on the knife belonged to the deceased.
An assistant prosecutor general supported the impugned judgment while the counsel for the complainant chose to remain absent.
A single bench of the high court comprising Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro after hearing the arguments and perusal of evidence observed that the complainant and other witnesses had been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, but no worthwhile contradiction that impaired the prosecution’s case had come on record.
The SHC observed that all the witnesses were consistent over the fact that Imtiaz was armed with a dagger and he caused two injuries to the deceased, one on right side of his neck called in medical terminology as supraclavicular fossa and the other on the right temporal region of the head.
The high court observed that the seat of the injury had been confirmed by the medico-legal officer who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased.
The high court observed that none of the witnesses had faltered while describing salient features of the case.
The SHC observed that it was not the case of prosecution that all the four persons were present together when the appellant had launched the attack on the deceased but that the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle with a prosecution witness, Hussain, when the incident happened all of a sudden.
The high court observed that it appeared from the prosecution’s story, the deceased and Hussain were unaware that the appellant after flagging them down on the road would suddenly attack them. the victims were caught off-guard and therefore failed to put up any defence.
The SHC observed that the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its burden to prove the case against the appellant while the appellant in his 342 CrPC statement did not bring up any material for a consideration in juxtaposition with it.
The high court observed that except pointing out to minor discrepancies which did come in the evidence of witnesses when they were examined in the court after some time of the incident, nothing had been pointed out undermining the prosecution’s case.
The SHC observed that the trial court had given solid and cogent reasons in support of findings of guilt against the appellant. The high court observed that it found no merits in the appeal and dismissed the same.
Published in News Daily on 04-Novemeber-2024.