KARACHI, Dec 3: The Sindh High Court has admitted for regular hearing a criminal acquittal appeal against the trial court’s judgment which had found the two respondents not guilty of murdering a lady doctor.

While admitting the appeal, Justice Ashraf Leghari also ordered issuance of bailable warrants in the sum of Rs100,000 to the husband of the deceased doctor and his sister-in-law (respondents).

Complainant Muhammad Yusuf, father of Dr. Shaista, represented by counsel Khawaja Naved Ahmed, had assailed the judgement of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, of May 10, whereby the two respondents were acquitted in the sessions case tried under section 302, 201, 202/34 PPC. The state had also filed an acquittal appeal against the same judgment.

The respondents in the case were Abdul Anees, husband of the deceased doctor, and Bano Abdul Jabbar. They were represented by Shoukat Hayat and Amir Azam, respectively.

It was the case of the appellant that respondents Abdul Anis and Bano Jabbar, after consulting Abdul Jabbar, had committed Qatal-i-Amd of Dr Shaista and had thrown her from the third floor apartment on April 9, 1997, and she had succumbed to injuries in Jinnah Hospital.

It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that the trial court, which had acquitted the accused, had not appraised the evidence of prosecution witnesses in right directions.

He had also contended that the appellant had no personal motive to implicate the respondents in the murder of his daughter.

The incident took place in the house belonging to accused Abdul Anis. The statment of the accused, his prior and subsequent conduct in the matter, had also not been taken into consideration by the trial court, counsel for the appellant, submitted. The evidence was misread and mis-appreciated by the trial court. The dictum laid down by the superior courts with regard to dispensation of a criminal justice had been violated. Hence it was a fit case for the admission of criminal acquittal appeal in view of the miscarriage of justice, the counsel advocated.

Counsel for the state Fazlur Rahman Awan adopted arguments of the counsel for the complainant/appellant.

Counsel for the respondents, appearing on pre-admission notice, had opposed the admission of criminal appeal on the ground that the respondents had been properly acquitted and the double presumption innocence was attached in favour of the accused.

Justice Leghari, in his order observed that the conduct of the accused was abnormal. In such a situation, the burden to some extent also lies on him to explain the circumstances in which this incident occurred.

The impugned judgment does not disclose that the exceptional circumstances shown in the resent incident had been cumulatively taken into consideration by the trial court, he observed.

“The acquittal judgment manifest glaring misreading which has caused grave miscarriage of justice. The reasoning shown for acquittal appears to be artificial and perverse. The points raised require consideration”, Justice Leghari held while admitting the appeal and directed to issue bailable warrants in the sum of Rs100,000 against the two respondents. The matter was adjourned to a date in office.