| Case ID |
2e844b84-1c18-4154-9f1f-371a746f1b91 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2006 and Confirmation C |
| Decision Date |
Apr 16, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 30, 2015 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court upheld the trial court's decision to convict Dr. Muhammad Saleem under Section 302 of the Penal Code, affirming the death sentence imposed. The Court meticulously reviewed the prosecution's evidence, which included compelling eyewitness testimonies and the recovery of the deceased Shakeela’s body from the appellant's clinic, establishing a strong circumstantial case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's inability to provide a plausible explanation for the disappearance and his prolonged absconding were deemed as additional corroborative evidence of his involvement in the premeditated and brutal murder. The High Court found no merit in the appellant's appeals or defenses, thereby maintaining the death penalty to serve as a deterrent against such heinous crimes. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2006 and Confirmation Case No. 8 of 2006, the Sindh High Court delivered a pivotal judgment on April 16, 2015, concerning the conviction of Dr. Muhammad Saleem under Section 302 of the Penal Code for the premeditated murder of Shakeela. The case, heard on March 30, 2015, delved deep into the intricacies of criminal law, evidentiary standards, and the application of justice in heinous crimes. The prosecution presented a robust case, highlighting critical elements such as the last seen evidence, medical testimonials, and the recovery of the victim’s body from the defendant’s clinic. Eyewitnesses, including Abdul Razzak, an employee at Dr. Saleem’s clinic, provided detailed accounts of the events leading to Shakeela's disappearance and subsequent death. The evidence was further substantiated by the medical report from the W.M.O. and the physical evidence recovered from the crime scene, including a blood-stained chadder and pickaxe, which were instrumental in establishing the defendant’s guilt.
The defense, represented by Amir Mansoob Qureshi, challenged the validity of the prosecution's evidence, questioning the delay in lodging the FIR and the integrity of the witnesses. However, the High Court found the defense arguments unconvincing, noting the corroborative nature of the evidence and the absence of any substantial doubt regarding the appellant's involvement. The appellant's prolonged absconding post-offense was interpreted as a deliberate attempt to evade justice, further strengthening the prosecution's stance. The Court meticulously analyzed precedents from various Supreme Court cases, reinforcing the necessity of upholding stringent penalties to deter such brutal crimes.
Key legal principles emphasized in the judgment include the reliability of circumstantial evidence when meticulously corroborated, the significance of the accused's conduct post-crime, and the imperative of administering justice to maintain societal order. The decision underscores the High Court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice prevails in crimes involving severe moral turpitude. This case serves as a critical reference for future legal proceedings, highlighting the judiciary's role in balancing the scales of justice with meticulous attention to legal standards and evidentiary scrutiny. The judgment not only reaffirms the prosecution's case but also sets a precedent for handling similar cases with the seriousness they warrant, thereby contributing significantly to the body of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Sindh High Court,
The State,
Dr. Muhammad Saleem,
Amir Mansoob Qureshi,
Ms. Rahat Ashan,
Shahadat Awan
|
| Judges |
Sajjad Ali Shah,
Naimatullah Phulpoto
|
| Lawyers |
Amir Mansoob Qureshi,
Ms. Rahat Ashan,
Shahadat Awan
|
| Petitioners |
Dr. Muhammad Saleem
|
| Respondents |
The State
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 2179,
2016 YLR 500
|
| Other Citations |
1995 SCMR 127 (SC) (Mehmood Ahmed and 3 others v. The State),
2002 SCMR 1797 (Subhan Khan v. The State),
1981 PCr.LJ 1072 [Karachi] (Muhammad Ayub v. The State),
1981 PCr.LJ 1066 [Karachi] (Rajib v. The State),
1981 PCr.LJ 898 [Karachi] (Khamiso v. The State),
1981 PCr.LJ 768 [Karachi] (Lal Bux and 4 others v. The State),
1981 PCr.LJ 857 [Karachi] (Guloo v. The State),
1972 SCMR 574 (Khan Zaman v. Kachkol and another),
1983 SCMR 1292 (Bagh Ali v. Muhammad Anwar and another),
1989 PCr.LJ 1093 [Karachi] (Shadoo alias Zhahzado v. The State),
PLD 1969 SC 469 (Bashir Ahmad v. Muhammad Azam and 3 others),
2005 MLD 1603 (Gul Muhammad v. The State),
2013 MLD 836 (Pesh) (Naseeb-ur-Rehman v. Muqarab Khan and others),
2013 YLR 806 (Lahore) (Ghulam Shabbir and others v. The State and others),
2001 SCMR 177 (Riaz Hussain v. The State),
PLD 1998 SC 1445 (Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan),
1990 SCMR 1284 (Nisar Ahmed v. The State),
2011 SCMR 670 (Gul Muhammad v. The State),
1998 SCMR 2669 (Jaffer Ali v. The State)
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Criminal Procedure Code,
Qisas and Diyat Ordinance
|
| Sections |
302,
161,
164,
342,
512,
34
|