Shah Hussain vs. The State, etc. 2018 (Khadija Siddiqui Case)

Case Name: Shah Hussain v The State, etc. (Khadija Siddiqui Case)
Case No.: 194537 of 2018
Judge: Justice Sardar Ahmed Naeem
Date of decision: 4-06-2018

Petitioner represented by: Advocate Rai Bashir Ahmed
State: District Public Prosecutor- Tariq Javed
Respondent No.2: Barrister Salman Safdar

The facts in brief are that Riaz Ahmed (driver) complainant along with Khadija Siddiqi went to school to pick up her younger sister Sofia Siddiqi. They parked the vehicle, a Suzuki Alto, in front of the Ambassador Hotel, Lahore. Khadija Siddiqi, who picked her sister up from school, was about to sit inside her car when one unknown person emerged at the scene, attacked Khadija Siddiqi and stabbed her with a “churri” (knife) on various parts of her body. Following the incident, she was shifted to Services Hospital by her driver. During this occurrence Sofia Siddiqi also sustained a churri blow.

The Petitioner denied all the allegations levied against him in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.c. The trial court held the petitioner to be guilty and the judgment of trial court was maintained with amodification by the additional session judge. Hence this revision was submitted.

The council for the petitioner contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the petitioner, beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR; that the last worn clothes of the victim, Khadija Siddiqi, were neither produced before the investigation officer, nor secured by him. The statements of the witnesses were full of discrepancies. That the Churri was recovered from the petitioner after five months without any bloodstains. The counsel for petitioner added that the motive behind the attack had not been proved and that the facts of the case were distorted by the complainant due to some extraneous factors. Further, he said that since the initial medical report recorded Khadija to have sustained eleven injuries and in the follow-up corrigendum she had an additional twelve injuries, therefore the medical evidence had also been tampered with, just to aggravate the story of prosecution.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that the victim became unconscious after sustaining injuries and she identified the petitioner to be her attacker in her statement. The counsel added that the churri was recovered and motive had also been proved. Since both the victims were direct evidence in this case, the petition was therefore liable to be dismissed. The counsel said that there should be no question of leniency for the petitioner as the victim, a female student, had been harassed by the petitioner during her studies, before the attack. The court of appeal misdirected itself in sentencing the petitioner leniently, thus the sentence awarded previously should be suitably enhanced.

The court while going through the evidences detailed that wherever the injured sustained churri blows, she must have bled profusely but neither her blood-stained clothes nor a blood stained foot mat of her car were produced during the investigation. The injured and petitioner were class fellows but the injured did not nominated him in the F.I.R. There was no question of his identity. The petitioner was wearing a red colored helmet at the time of occurrence, which fell in the car upon resistance offered by the victim and then all three saw the assailant, not nominated till 08-05-2016.

The Court stated that Khadija claimed that she was not conscious and this justified the delay in the petitioner’s identification by her but the prosecution failed to prove that she was unconscious as the Medical officer who examined her initially asked Khadija questions which she had answered correctly. She observed 11 injuries as mentioned in the medical certificate. However, at trial she described that the injured sustained 23 injuries. Khadija further stated that after the incident she was in need of serious medical attention and was shifted to the Intensive Care Unit for surgery but neither a surgeon nor any operation notes were produced to evidence this by the prosecution. Another oddity noticed by the court was that the driver did not inform the parents of the victim and instead, wrote the application and registered the FIR on his own.

The judge relying on reported judgments said that injury on a witness is only an indication of his presence at the spot but not proof of his credibility and truthfulness. The motive sketched by prosecution was that the petitioner harassed Khadija and upon her refusal, he became infuriated and attacked her. However, the injured admitted during cross examination that she wrote a letter of 4 pages to petitioner proposing him for marriage and mentioned “qabool hai qabool hai qabool hai”. It was also admitted that she never complained against the petitioner for any misconduct or harassment to her college’s administration or police or even to her parents. The injured confessed that she had different friends with whom she had photographs, in or outside her college, including the petitioner. The motive set up by the prosecution was therefore redundant.

The court stated that since the victim herself was bearing witness, she could not be believed in the circumstances of the case. This had escaped the notice of both the courts below, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the court decided that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges it had brought against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision No. 194537 of 2018 was allowed. The petitioner was acquitted of all charges. The accused was in judicial custody and was later released. Whereas, criminal Revision No. 198776 of 2018 filed by complainant for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.