IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Appeal No.S-79 of 2023

Imran Golo

V/S

The State

Appellant:                                          Through Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahiyo,

Advocate.

State:                                                  Through Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional

Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of Hearing:                               26.02.2025

Date of Decision:                             10.03.2025

O R D E R

Omar Sial, J.-   A police party of the Buxapur police station was on routine patrol on 29.04.2022, when it received information that a lady named Shazia had been murdered by her husband Imran. The police party reached the identified spot and saw Imran, his father Meer Mohammad, both armed with pistols, together with an unidentified person, walking away. The police chased the three men, but they managed to escape. The police went back to Imran’s house and saw a woman’s dead body lying approximately twenty feet outside Imran’s house. A man, identified as Mohammad Ramzan, told the police that the dead girl was his daughter Shazia and that she had been shot dead by her husband Imran, Imran’s father Meer Mohammad and one unknown person. F.I.R. No. 41 of 2022 was registered under sections 302, 311 and 34 P.P.C. on 29.04.2022 by A.S.I. Mohammad Moosa Domki, on behalf of the State.

2.         Imran was arrested on 06.05.2024 while he was armed with a pistol allegedly used in the killing. Imran pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses. Haji Khan Golo (the revenue officer who sketched the scene of incident); S.I. Ghulam Nabi Kalhoro (the second investigating officer of the case); A.S.I. Muhammad Moosa Domki (the complainant); P.C. Shehak Ali Jakhrani (witnessed the arrest and recoveries made from the crime scene); P.C. Maula Bux Domki (witnessed the arrest and dealt with the dead body); Mohammad Ramzan and Babal (witnessed the arrest, recovery and site inspection); Dr. Priyanka Punshi (the doctor who did the post mortem); Inspector Azizullah (the first investigating officer of the case) and Barkat Ali (the courier who took the case property to the forensic laboratory. The appellant professed his innocence in the statement under section 342 Cr.P.C.

3.         At the end of the trial, on 14.09.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kashmore convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under sections 302(b) and 311 P.P.C. and compensation of Rs. 100,000.

4.         I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Prosecutor General and have reviewed the entire record with their assistance. None affected an appearance on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased. My observations and findings are as follows.

5.         The prosecution solely relied on the information given to the first responders of the police by the dead girl’s father Mohammad Ramzan to nominate Imran as a suspect. The father at trial completely disowned the police story and in no uncertain terms said that Imran was innocent and that he had never said what the police claims was told to them by him. He said that he had not recorded a section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and had gone to the police station after Shazia’s burial to register a case but was surprised that the State had already registered a case. Similarly, Babal, whom the prosecution had introduced as a witness to the arrest, search, recovery, and site inspection, denied that he had ever witnessed any of the foregoing steps of investigation. He testified that the police had called him to the police station where Imran was already in custody and that he (Babal) was made to sign three blank papers. Just like Mohammad Ramzan, Babal too gave Imran a clean chit. Most surprisingly, while Babal was declared hostile by the prosecution, Mohammad Ramzan was not. Thus, the testimony of the sole alleged eyewitness to the murder remained unchallenged.

6.         Mohammad Moosa Domki (the complainant) said at trial that he received spy information at around 7:45 p.m. regarding Shazia’s death and at that time the police party was two to three kilometers away from the place of incident (according to witness P.C. Shehak Ali). The police party reached the place of incident in approximately half an hour. The prosecution case is that when the police reached the spot, they saw the assailants leaving armed with pistols. The conduct of the assailants to remain at the scene of the incident for thirty minutes and then attempting to flee still holding the pistols in their hands when the police was only a little distance away from them, is unnatural. It was also not explained at trial how the police party identified the three men, whom they claim they saw leaving from the spot, as Imran and his father Meer Mohammad. It was not suggested that the two were known to the police previously and no identification parade was held after Imran’s arrest for the members of the police party to identify whether he was the same person who was seen by them leaving the scene of the crime.

7.         The reason given for the prosecution for the killing was that Shazia was allegedly having an affair with a man named Wahab Guloo. In this background, it is unbelievable that while Shazia was killed by her husband, Wahab, the lover was also with the assailants. This is borne out from Shewak Ali’s testimony when in his cross-examination he said “We saw the accused Gullo alias Wahab Gullo, standing on the spot”. Apart from this anomaly, the record reveals that the investigating officer of the case made no effort to find out the facts behind the allegation of Shazia having an affair with Wahab. No person was interrogated in this regard.

8.         The prosecution case is that two pistol bullet shells were found from the scene of the crime. The memo of recovery also records the detection of these empties. Inspector Azizullah Sehro made the recovery memo and was witnessed by Babal and Habibullah. While Azizullah said in his testimony that two empties were recovered, as mentioned above, Babal did not corroborate or support his assertion. The other witness, Habibullah, had died. In any case, a separate case was filed against Imran for the unlicensed crime weapon he was arrested with. The prosecution failed to prove its case and Imran was acquitted of the charge on 28.02.2023. The recovery of the crime weapon and the empties remained doubtful.

9.         The learned trial court has observed in the impugned judgment that a common tactic in honor killings had been deployed in this incident. Nobody had come forward to be a witness and the two witnesses on whose alleged statements the prosecution had built up its case had recanted. The trial court is correct in its observation. Indeed, the High Court has repeatedly directed the prosecution and the police’s attention to the weak trial and investigation in similar cases; unfortunately, it has had no positive impact on such cases. The difficulty a judge finds himself in in such a situation is that an accused has to be acquitted due to lack of evidence. A presumption cannot be made when the law does not permit it. In the present case, no evidence, apart from a statement made by a spy informer that the killing was an honor killing, was brought forward by the prosecution to substantiate the charge under section 311 P.P.C. It would be apt to quote out of Naveed Asghar vs The State (PLD 2021 SC 600):

“Before parting with the judgment, we feel constrained to observe though at the cost of some repetition but for the sake of clarity that in a criminal trial an accused person cannot be convicted on the basis of mere "suspicion" or "probability" unless and until the charge against him is "proved beyond reasonable doubt", a standard of proof required in criminal cases in almost all common law jurisdictions. An accused person cannot be deprived of his constitutional right³⁸ to be dealt with in accordance with law, merely because he is alleged to have committed a gruesome and heinous offence. The zeal to punish an offender even in derogation or violation of the law would blur the distinction between arbitrary decisions and lawful judgments. No doubt, duty of the courts is to administer justice; but this duty is to be performed in accordance with the law and not otherwise. The mandatory requirements of law cannot be ignored by labelling them as technicalities in pursuit of the subjective administration of justice. One guilty person should not be taken to task at the sacrifice of the very basis of a democratic and civilised society, i.e., the rule of law. Tolerating acquittal of some guilty whose guilt is not proved under the law is the price which the society is to pay for the protection of their invaluable constitutional right to be treated in accordance with the law. Otherwise, every person will have to bear peril of being dealt with under the personal whims of the persons sitting in executive or judicial offices, which they in their own wisdom and subjective assessment consider good for the society.”

10.       Given the above, the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He may be released if not required in any other custody case.

JUDGE

Manzoor