SC dismisses death convict’s appeal

Court says victim had a right to seek khula


Our Correspondent December 08, 2017
PHOTO: RASHID AJMERI/EXPRESS

KARACHI: Upholding capital punishment, the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed on Thursday a convict’s appeal against a sentence awarded to him for killing his wife over seeking khula (separation).

“Seeking khula was a legal right of the victim, but the appellant killed her to take avenge for such demand,” observed the apex court’s three-judge bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, while rejecting the appeal.

The bench that also comprised justices Mushir Alam and Maqbool Baqar passed this order while hearing appeal filed by Muhammad Ismail at the SC’s Karachi Registry.

The appellant, Muhammad Ismail, had approached the apex court in 2016 challenging the Sindh High Court’s (SHC) order dismissing his appeal and maintaining the capital punishment awarded to him by the trial court.

Ismail was charged with murdering his wife, Nadia, in Liaquatabad in 2011. The prosecution alleged that the accused was unhappy with his wife for seeking khula from him.

Apex court summons KDA DG on contempt petition

The high court had upheld his sentence, observing the trial court had rightly awarded him the death sentence as the prosecution had successfully established its case and the trial court had found him guilty of committing the alleged offence.

On Thursday, the judges took up his appeal for hearing.

After hearing arguments from the defence, the prosecution and the victim, the bench members observed that seeking khula was a legal right of the victim under the relevant laws.

They observed that the appellant had murdered Nadia in order to take avenge, therefore, such people could be given any leniency.

The apex court’s bench further observed that other evidence bears less importance since the eyewitnesses had recorded their statements and testified before the court of law.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ