| Decision |
The Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench, acquitted the appellant Ghulam Hyder in Criminal Jail Appeal No. D-60 and Confirmation Case No. 15 of 2014 dated 5-11-2018 following a hearing on 30-10-2018. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Section 302(b) of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860). Inconsistencies in witness statements, delayed recovery of evidence, and lack of credible proof led to the decision to acquit and order the immediate release of the appellant. The appellate court emphasized the importance of reliable and trustworthy evidence in criminal convictions, highlighting the prosecution's inability to eliminate reasonable doubt in this case. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Criminal Jail Appeal No. D-60 and Confirmation Case No. 15 of 2014, the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench, delivered a pivotal judgment on November 5, 2018, after hearing arguments on October 30, 2018. The appellant, Ghulam Hyder, was initially convicted under Section 302(b) of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860) for the murder of his wife, leading to a death sentence and a compensation order of Rs.2,00,000 under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. However, upon appeal, the higher court meticulously scrutinized the prosecution's case and identified critical gaps and inconsistencies that undermined the conviction.
The prosecution's case was primarily built on witness testimonies that exhibited significant contradictions. For instance, the complainant Muhammad Yousif alleged that Ghulam Hyder attacked his daughter with hatchet blows, leading to her demise. However, during cross-examination, witnesses like PW-Imtiaz and PW-Ayaz presented conflicting accounts regarding the timing and motivation behind the visit to the appellant's residence. Additionally, discrepancies were noted in the medical reports, where the number and location of injuries did not align with the complainant's statements. The delayed dispatch of the recovered hatchet to the Chemical Examiner further cast doubts on the integrity of the evidence presented.
Defense arguments highlighted the absence of immediate FIR lodging post-incident, suggesting potential ulterior motives behind the accusations. The court also observed that the prosecution failed to adequately produce key witnesses, such as the mother of the deceased, whose testimony could have provided crucial insights into the events leading up to the incident. The appellate bench stressed the necessity of unequivocal and reliable evidence for a conviction, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution to eliminate any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.
Moreover, the defense effectively demonstrated the lack of motive as presented by the prosecution. While the complainant cited familial discord stemming from the accused's love marriage, the defense presented a coherent narrative that questioned the timing and intent behind the alleged attack. The court's thorough evaluation revealed that the prosecution's narrative was riddled with uncertainties and procedural lapses, making the conviction untenable.
The judgment underscores the paramount importance of procedural fairness and the rigorous standards of evidence required in criminal jurisprudence. By acquitting Ghulam Hyder, the Sindh High Court reinforced the principle that a person's liberty cannot be curtailed without irrefutable evidence. This case serves as a crucial precedent, highlighting the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights against potential miscarriages of justice. It also underscores the need for meticulous legal representation and the critical examination of evidence in appellate courts.
In conclusion, the acquittal of Ghulam Hyder in this case not only rectified a wrongful conviction but also reinforced the integrity of the legal system in upholding justice based on sound evidence and fair trial principles. The decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's duty to ensure that convictions are firmly grounded in reliable and consistent evidence, thereby maintaining public trust in the legal framework. |