Mst. SEEMA vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 67 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. SEEMA VS State Ss.302, 324, 353, 109 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, abetment, common intention, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Motive not proved---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused persons made firing on the brother of complainant, who died in the hospital---Record showed that Police Constable came from the petrol station and tried to stop the two accused but they both started firing at him and Police Constable retaliated upon which the culprits fell down---Meanwhile a police mobile also reached there and arrested the two injured accused---No motive had been proved against the accused and it had not been conclusively determined whether it was the accused or co-accused (now deceased) fired the fatal shot which killed the deceased---Sentence of accused was reduced from death penalty to life imprisonment, in circumstances---Case against co-accused was that she had planned and had common intention along with accused to murder the deceased---Investigating Officer had admitted during cross-examination that beside Call Data Record, he had not produced any evidence against co-accused---Call Data Record was a conclusive proof that co-accused was in constant contact via mobile phone with target killer and the deceased around the time of the incident---Evidence showed that she was in the business of arranging travel tickets and visa's---Person, who was travelling in the car with deceased and others, was expecting to receive a visa from her so that he could proceed on his international travel that day from the airport---Due to some confusion, a number of phone calls were made between the concerned parties which must have included deceased and co-accused---Co-accused's calls to deceased on the evidence on record could be readily explained on the day of the incident---Reasonable inference that said calls were made by co-accused to guide her relative to place where the deceased was so that her relative and accused could murder him in accordance with their plan, could not be drawn from the particular facts and circumstances of the case---Circumstances suggested that it was equally true that co-accused might have been contacting deceased in connection with the confusion about receiving his visa before departing that day and speaking to relative of co-accused on family issues---Prosecution's version that conversations of the calls mentioned in the Call Data Record between co-accused, her relative and deceased on the day of the incident showed that co-accused was guiding her relative to deceased's location so that relative of co-accused and accused could murder deceased pursuant to their plan and common intention could not be proved without a tape recording of the conversations---Prosecution was unable to prove its case against co-accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the offence for which she was charged, no matter how strong their suspicions, presumptions and surmises might be---appeal of accused was dismissed, however, death penalty was converted into imprisonment for life---appeal of co-accused was allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. SEEMA vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 67 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported