The Supreme Court of Pakistan has acquitted a man after 15 years in a murder case arising from a dispute over Rs 2,500, ordering his immediate release.
The verdict was announced by a three-member bench comprising Justice Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim. In its detailed judgment, the court observed that the presence of the complainant at the crime scene was doubtful, noting that the incident allegedly occurred in complete darkness and no source of light was mentioned in the record.
The Supreme Court ruled that the incident did not occur in the manner described by the prosecution and termed the case mysterious in nature.
Referring to the statement of the investigating officer, the court noted that the fatal shot was not fired by Naeem Arshad but by Shehbaz Ali. The recovered pistol from Shehbaz Ali was found to match the shell collected from the crime scene. The court further observed that Shehbaz Ali had already been acquitted by the trial court, and neither the state nor the complainant challenged that acquittal.
The apex court also remarked that the prosecution’s failure to present key witnesses before the court created serious doubts about its case.
According to the case record, the incident took place on March 14, 2011, in Sahiwal, where Muhammad Anwar was shot dead at a cloth shop. The complainant claimed that a quarrel over unpaid dues of Rs 2,500 two days earlier led to the murder.
Setting aside the Lahore High Court’s verdict dated November 29, 2017, the Supreme Court acquitted Naeem Arshad alias Pappu of the murder charge and ordered his immediate release.
The trial court had earlier sentenced Naeem Arshad to 25 years in prison in 2015.
Separately, the top court dismissed a nearly 60-year-old right of pre-emption claim relating to agricultural land, declaring it premature, mala fide, and the result of collusion between the plaintiff and the vendor.
The apex court set aside the judgments of the Lahore High Court and the Additional District Judge, and rejected the plaintiff’s suit.
According to the court’s approved written detailed judgment issued for reporting, a two-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Bilal Hasan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed decided Civil Appeal No. 756/L/2012 after hearing the matter. The court held that the plaintiff, by his conduct, had waived his right of pre-emption and that the litigation was, in fact, a product of collusion between the seller and the plaintiff.
As per the judgment, 151 kanals and 11 marlas of agricultural land situated in village Raja Jang, Kasur district, were sold on July 17, 1967, through a registered sale deed by the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff filed the pre-emption suit almost one year after the sale, on the last permissible day.
The Supreme Court observed that the plaintiff was fully aware of all stages of the sale transaction and was living in the same house as his father at the relevant time. Despite having complete knowledge, he neither asserted his right at the time of sale nor at the stage of registration.
The court held that remaining silent despite full awareness of the sale, allowing the transaction to be completed and permitting the purchasers to act upon it amounted to a waiver of the right of pre-emption. Consequently, the plaintiff was no longer entitled to institute the claim at a later stage. The judgment further noted that the Lahore High Court had committed a clear legal error by disregarding settled legal principles and by treating the plaintiff’s presence and knowledge as inconsequential, instead of conducting a holistic appraisal of the evidence on record.
The Supreme Court also observed that the right of pre-emption is a weak and “piratical” right, and that such claims are often instituted through close relatives with mala fide intentions and collusion. Expressing regret, the court noted that the plaintiff had dragged the litigation through various courts for nearly six decades, resulting in a waste of precious judicial time and obstructing the course of justice.
The court expressed serious concern over this trend and urged trial courts to actively discourage false, frivolous, and mala fide litigation in order to reduce the unnecessary burden on the judicial system. The Supreme Court directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Super tax case hearing adjourned until today
The Federal Constitutional Court adjourned the hearing of the super tax case till Wednesday, January 21.
The case was heard by a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah.
During the hearing, counsel for various companies, Owais Ali Shah, appeared before the court and concluded his arguments. He contended that the imposition of super tax after payment of final tax was beyond comprehension. He argued that under the existing regime, a person earning Rs100 or Rs 10,000 was being subjected to the same tax, which was against the principles of justice.
While remarking on the lengthy arguments presented by the lawyers, Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan observed that counsels were taking unnecessarily long time in advancing their submissions, making it imperative for the court to set a clear time frame for arguments. He further remarked that lawyers often seek a short adjournment but then prolong their arguments, resulting in wastage of the court’s valuable time.
Later, counsel for other companies, Jamal Ahmed Sakhira, addressed the bench and stated that compared to the Sindh and Lahore High Courts, he was granted the maximum time for arguments before the Islamabad High Court, and sought two days to present his case.
At this, the Chief Justice made it clear that this was the final case and no counsel would be allowed extra time thereafter. He observed that the court’s time was being wasted and that arguments would now have to be restricted. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court adjourned further hearing of the case till January 21.