Shahzeb murder: Parents pardon Shahrukh, other accused

September 9, 2013 Off By Web Desk

KARACHI: The Parents of a 20yearold Shahzeb Khan, who was gunned down on the night of 24 December 2012 in Defence area, have filed an application in the Sindh High Court SHC, pardoning killers of Shahzeb in the name of God.

The victims family moved an application stating that they have decided to pardon the murderers in the name of Allah without any pressure or coercion. They stated that they have come to an understanding outside the court.

Advocate Mehmood Alam, representing victim family, also filed affidavits on behalf of the victim’s heirs Orangzeb Khan, Ambreen, Maha and Pareshay.

Shahrukh Jatoi along with Nawab Siraj Ali Talpur was sentenced to death while Siraj’s brother Nawab Sajjad Ali Talpur and his employee Ghulam Murtaza Lashari were sentenced to life imprisonment by ATC on June 7 after finding them guilty of murdering a Shahzaib Khan in Defence area on December 24 last year.

The prosecution alleged that Ghulam Murtaza Lashsari, an employee of Siraj Talpur, teased Shahzaib’s sister that resulted in bickering between Shahzaib and Shahrukh Jatoi, Siraj Talpur and others but the matter was resolved on the intervention of Shahzaib’s father Aurangzaib Khan.

According to the prosecution, the accused followed Shahzaib, who left the house in his vehicle after the brawl, and later on the instigation of absconding coaccused Asif Lund and Salman Jatoi, accused Shahrukh Jatoi and Siraj Talpur made murderous assault on Shahzaib with pistols at Khyaban Bahria near Mubarak Masjid due to which Shahzaib succumbed to his injuries at the Ziauddin Hospital.

Meanwhile, Shahrukh Jatoi, the main convict in Shahzaib Khan’s murder case and other convicts, have also filed appeal in the Sindh High Court against his conviction by an Anti Terrorism Court.

They submitted in appeal that the trial court erred in its judgment by convicting the appellant and saying that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.

He submitted that there existed glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which could not be sustained in the eyes of the law as well as the rulings of superior courts.

They prayed the court to set aside the trial court’s order as the prosecution could not establish its case sufficiently, and order the release of the appellant.