Shahzada Khan V. The State,
YLR 2020 1048 · Balochistan High Court
This case involved an appeal against a murder conviction. Shahzada Khan had been convicted by a trial court of killing Mor Khan by shooting him, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed his conviction, while the victim's mother separately asked the court to increase the sentence.
The Balochistan High Court found serious problems with the prosecution's case and acquitted the appellant. The complainant had not witnessed the killing herself and relied on secondhand information. The only claimed eyewitness was a close relative of the deceased and admittedly hostile toward the accused, yet no independent witnesses, such as nearby shopkeepers present when the shooting allegedly occurred in a busy market, were ever questioned. The eyewitness's account also conflicted with medical evidence, and the site plan failed to even show where he was supposedly standing. The investigating officer had started investigating and collecting evidence before the FIR was formally registered, casting doubt on the case's foundation. Additionally, physical evidence like the pistol, shell casings, and bloodstained clothes were sent for forensic testing over two months late, and were sent together, undermining the reliability of the results. Police also failed to obtain phone records that could have confirmed or disproved the alleged link between accused and victim. Finally, the alleged motive was never actually proven.
Because of these combined doubts, the court ruled the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The conviction was overturned and the appellant acquitted,
یہ مقدمہ قتل کی سزا کے خلاف اپیل سے متعلق تھا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے شہزادہ خان کو مور خان کو گولی مار کر قتل کرنے کے جرم میں مجرم قرار دیتے ہوئے عمر قید کی سزا سنائی تھی۔ اس نے اپنی سزا کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی، جبکہ مقتول کی والدہ نے علیحدہ طور پر عدالت سے سزا میں اضافے کی درخواست کی۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے استغاثہ کے مقدمے میں سنگین خامیاں پائیں اور اپیل کنندہ کو بری کر دیا۔ مدعیہ نے خود قتل کا واقعہ نہیں دیکھا تھا اور اس کا انحصار دوسروں سے ملی معلومات پر تھا۔ واحد مبینہ عینی شاہد مقتول کا قریبی رشتہ دار تھا اور بذات خود اقرار کرتا تھا کہ وہ ملزم کے خلاف عناد رکھتا ہے، پھر بھی کوئی غیرجانبدار گواہ، جیسے کہ قریبی دکاندار جو مبینہ طور پر ہجوم والے بازار میں فائرنگ کے وقت موجود تھے، سے کبھی تفتیش نہیں کی گئی۔ عینی شاہد کا بیان طبی شواہد سے بھی متصادم تھا، اور نقشہ جائے وق