KARACHI: A sessions court has handed down life imprisonment to two men in a case pertaining to a triple murder.
Additional District and Sessions Judge (Central) Ghulam Abbas Memon found Tanveer and Amir guilty of killing three persons, including a nine-year-old boy, and wounding several others by opening an indiscriminate fire while they were travelling towards Sohrab Goth in 2013.
The court also awarded them an additional five-year term for committing an offence under Section 324 (attempt to murder) and directed each of the accused to pay a compensation of Rs200,000 to the legal heirs against each deceased person, besides a fine.
Reasoning for not awarding capital punishment, the court observed that the lesser punishment is being awarded to the accused persons looking to the circumstances of the case whereby the motive has not been traced out rather remained shrouded in mystery. Besides, it added, it could not be established as to who was killed or injured by whose firing. Moreover, neither the crime weapon was seized from the possession of the accused persons nor was it recovered on their pointation. Therefore, all these circumstances are considered as mitigating circumstances, the judge said.
The case was remanded back to the trial court by the Sindh High Court with directions for a fresh trial after the accused challenged their conviction by the trial court.
According to the prosecution, the complainant stated that on Oct 14, 2013, he and his children had left home to purchase a sacrificial animal from Sohrab Goth by their vehicles. As they reached near Abdullah College, he, the complainant, saw his uncle, who has since passed away, present there. “My uncle asked his sons to kill us, upon which they opened fire resulting in the death of three passengers and injuries to several others,” he said.
One of the mothers of deceased persons, Sajida Hanif, narrated the previous history of the enmity between the accused persons and her family over financial dispute. However, the court noted: “She [Sajida] has tried to introduce the enmity as motive. However, such motive has never been set up by the prosecution in its case since inception nor brought the same on record through complainant and other witnesses.
“Therefore, the evidence of Ms Sajida Hanif to that effect also never warrants to considerations. Hence, her evidence being hearsay in nature is neither beneficial to the accused persons nor the same is in adverse to prosecution’s case, rather it is fully compatible with the evidence of ocular account.”
Published in Dawn, October 17th, 2025.
