IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No.S-69 of 2023

Appellant:                            Mohabbat Khan son of Muhammad Khan alias Khan Bhangwar

Through Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate.

The State:                              Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General.

Date of hearing:                 15.01.2025   

Date of decision:                22.01.2025

JUDGMENT

Omar Sial, J.:-   A.S.I. Nawab Khan Golato of the Bakhspur police station alleged that on 09.07.2022, he received information that a young girl, Fazeelat Khatoon, had been murdered by Mohabbat Khan. The unknown informant further told A.S.I. Golato that Fazeelat, a married woman, was blamed for having an affair with Imtiaz Bangwar, and that was the reason Mohabbat Khan had strangled her to death and thrown the dead body in a river. F.I.R. No. 64 of 2022 was registered under sections 302, 311, 201, and 34 P.P.C. at the Bakhspur police station.

2.         Mohabat Khan was arrested on 12.07.2022 but claimed that he was innocent and thus was tried in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, at trial A.S.I. Golato (the complainant), S.I. Nawab Khan Khoso (the investigating officer), Mubarak Ali (revenue officer), P.C. Mohammad Ali (witness to the inspection of the place of incident), P.C. Mohammad Hassan (witness to the recovery of the headscarf used to strangle Fazeelat) and P.C. Fahad Hussain Jakhrani (witness to the arrest of Mohabbat Khan) testified for the prosecution at the trial.

3.         In his section 342 Cr.P.C. statement, Mohabbat Khan, once again, professed innocence and stated that political enmity was the reason for the false accusation.

4.         The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, convicted Mohabbat Khan under sections 302(b) and 311 P.P.C. on 05.07.2023 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Mohabbat Khan was also convicted for offenses under section 201 P.P.C. and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Various fines and compensation were also imposed on the convict.

5.         I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Prosecutor General and gone through the entire record with their able assistance. The counsel's arguments are not being reproduced for brevity but are reflected in my observations below.

6.         An extraordinarily inefficient and unprofessional investigation was carried out in this case. The testimony recorded by A.S.I. Golato reveals that when he went to the house of Mohabbat Khan, there was a “mob of ladies” who were weeping and out of whom a couple told him that Mohabbat Khan had taken Fazeelat on a motorcycle for medical treatment but had instead strangled and killed her and thrown the dead body in a river. When Nawab Khan, the investigating officer, testified, he acknowledged that “it is correct that I have not examined any lady from the village Laqao Bangwar”. The only source that could have strengthened the prosecution case was deliberately and intentionally left unexplored by the investigating officer. He went on to admit that not only the ladies who had given A.S.I. Golato information was not examined, nor was any private witness from the area included in his investigation. The other piece of evidence that the prosecution claimed was evidence of the crime was the head scarf allegedly used by the killer to strangle Fazeelat. Any weight this piece of evidence could have given the prosecution was demolished when Nawab Khan admitted, “It is a fact that there is no seal on the sealing cloth.” Nawab acknowledged that “it is a fact that I have not produced any evidence regarding the death of the deceased.” It seems that the investigating officer was hell-bent on destroying the prosecution case when in one sweep he acknowledged that “it is a fact that my evidence is hearsay.”

7.         Let alone examine the women who told A.S.I. Golato about Mohabbat Khan’s involvement in the crime was examined; the investigating officer did not even attempt to do so; the only case property recovered was not sealed; the dead body was not found, nor was any attempt made to find it; no attempt was made to find a witness; no attempt was made to involve the family of the deceased as witnesses; no attempt was made to inquire about Fazeelat’s the alleged lover; the investigating officer admitted that his entire evidence was hearsay, thus, making it inadmissible in evidence. Needless to say, the learned Additional Prosecutor General, given the quality of evidence recorded at trial, could not forcefully support the impugned judgment.

8.         This case, yet again, is an example where an alleged honor killing has been dealt with casually by the police. On several occasions, this court has directed the police to improve their level of investigation, at least in such cases of gender-based violence. The court understands and appreciates that cases of such a nature are challenging to solve as no one comes forward to testify. It is, therefore, imperative to ensure that the latest forensic techniques are deployed during investigations, which seasoned investigators should conduct. Still, unfortunately, all such directions have gone in vain.

9.         The prosecution failed to prove its case; in fact, it even made no serious effort to prove its case. The judgment of the learned trial court is set aside, and with a heavy heart, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He may be released forthwith.

            A copy of this judgment should be sent to the Prosecutor General, Sindh, for onward submission to the Inspector-General of Police, Sindh. If he deems it appropriate, I.G. Sindh shall look into S.I. Nawab Khan's service record to determine whether he can conduct meaningful, honest, and neutral investigations.

JUDGE

    .