Criminal Appeal 749/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
Sindh High Court · 2021 · Before Omar Sial
On 02.09.2014 at about 8:00 p.m., Aamir Ali informed his father Gulzar Ahmed, that his maternal uncle, a man named Sarwar along with his daughter Mehak, had both been shot at. When Gulzar reached the identified spot he saw Sarwar lying dead having been shot several times whereas a bullet had grazed the head of Mehak and she was bleeding. Sarwar’s wife, Ambreen, told Gulzar that Asadullah Chohan, who was Gulzar’s nephew, had shot Sarwar and in the firing Mehak too had been injured. F.I.R. No. 348 of 2014 was registered under sections 302, 324 and 34 P.P.C. at the Baloch Colony police station on 03.09.2014 at 12:10 a.m. Asad was arrested the same day at 5:30 p.m. from a bus station when he was ostensibly trying to escape.
2. Asad pleaded not guilty to the charge against him and claimed trial. At trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW-1 Gulzar Ahmed was the complainant. PW-2 Muhammad Hasan Malik was a person who was known to Asad and who claimed that the night Asad had killed Sarwar, he i.e. Malik was with him sitting on a motorcycle outside. PW-3 Ambreen Rajput was the wife of the deceased and the only eye witness of the crime. PW-4 Ameer Muhammad alias Naeem was the person whose motorcycle Asad had borrowed to go to Sarwar’s house. PW-5 S.I. Sadaruddin Lakhan was the police officer who arrested Asad and then effected recovery of the 2 crime weapon on Asad’s pointation. PW-6 Ghulam Raza was the learned magistrate who recorded a section 164 Cr.P.C. statement made by PW-2 Muhammad Hasan Malik. PW-7 Dr. Qarar Abbasi was the doctor who conducted the post mortem on Sarwar’s body. PW-8 S.I. Ansar Pervaiz was the first investigating officer of the case.
3. Asad recorded his section 342 Cr.P.C. statement in which he denied all wrong doing. He also elaborated by stating that Ambreen had falsely implicated him because she had been pressurized by her brother. He said that the deceased had a business dispute with Ambreen’s brothers and as Asad was Sarwar’s business partner, he was falsely implicated in the case so that Sarwar’s brothers could usurp his property. He also recorded that Ambreen is living separately now and if she was recalled as a witness she would not give the same testimony she did at trial.
4. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South on 24.10.2019 held Asad to be guilty of murder and sentenced him to a life in prison as well as directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 500,000 and if he failed to do so he would have to spend another 6 months in prison. Asad was also convicted for an offence under section 324 P.P.C. for the injury he caused to Mehak and sentenced to spend 5 years in prison as well as pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 or spend a further 1 month in prison. It is this judgment that has been challenged through these proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is a discrepancy in the time of recording the section 154 Cr.P.C. between what the complainant claimed it was compared to the time written on the statement; that Mehak remained absent at trial therefore the story was made up by the defence to show the reason for her mother, Ambreen, to be present at the place of incident; that Ambreen…
Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…