KARACHI: Extending the physical remand of a suspect, a judicial magistrate ordered on Thursday his ossification test in a teenager boy’s murder case.
The police had arrested Mohammad Shoaib, also said to be a teenager, after the murder of Hamza Ahmed on the night of April 27 in the Defence Housing Authority and later he was handed over to the police on remand.
The suspect was produced with his driver Mushtaq before the court of a judicial magistrate (south), and the investigating officer sought custody of the newly-arrested suspect and extension in the remand of Shoaib on the ground that the main suspect, Amal, a security guard of Shoaib, was still at large.
The magistrate handed both suspects over to the police for four days. On an application of the IO the court also issued directive for the ossification test of Shoaib to determine his age. If the suspect is found over 18 years of age, he would be treated as an adult, otherwise as an underage suspect.
According to the prosecution, the victim was accused of harassing a female friend of Shoaib’s and they met outside a restaurant in the DHA to settle the matter, but an altercation between them allegedly prompted Shoaib’s guard to open fire on Hamza. Later, the victim died.
A case was registered under Sections 302 (punishment for premeditated murder) 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code at the Darakhshan police station.
A court sentenced on Thursday two accused to seven years imprisonment and their accomplice to three years in a robbery case.
The court found Shahid Akram and Sanaullah guilty of robbing the house of Dildar Hussain in Model Colony in March last year and held Abdul Qayyum accountable for helping the accused.
The assistant additional district and sessions judge (east), Sarwat Sultana, who conducted the trial, pronounced the verdict after recoding evidence and arguments from both sides.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs50,000 each on Shahid and Sana and Rs30,000 on the third convict. In case of non-payment, they will have to spend another month in prison.They were booked under Section 392 (punishment for robbery), 411(dishonestly receiving property stolen in commission of a dacoity) and 34 (common intention) of the PPC.