The Supreme Court of Pakistan has delivered a landmark judgment acquitting a man who had been sentenced to death for allegedly poisoning his four-year-old son. This ruling effectively nullifies the earlier death sentences handed down by both the Trial Court and the High Court, emphasizing significant inconsistencies and doubts surrounding the prosecution’s case. The verdict was authored by Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, who ordered the immediate release of the accused, underscoring the principle that justice must be grounded in certainty, especially in capital punishment cases.
The court’s decision highlighted the implausibility of a father deliberately harming his young child, noting that such an act runs counter to basic human instincts and parental love. The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive or credible evidence explaining why the father would commit such a heinous crime. Instead, the court pointed to the presence of pesticides in the household, used for treating the family’s cotton crop, as a plausible source of accidental poisoning. Medical findings further supported this possibility, indicating that a child of four years lacks the cognitive ability to differentiate between poisonous substances and safe liquids, making accidental ingestion a likely scenario.
In addition to questioning the motive, the Supreme Court scrutinized the reliability of eyewitness testimonies presented during the trial. The court found several contradictions and unnatural elements in their statements, casting doubt on their credibility. Witnesses failed to provide convincing reasons for their presence at the scene and were deemed coincidental observers rather than direct witnesses. Discrepancies were also noted regarding the color of the child’s clothing as described by the medical examiner compared to the witnesses’ accounts. Moreover, the witnesses did not inspect the room or check the utensils involved, which further weakened their testimonies and raised questions about their involvement.
Another critical factor influencing the court’s decision was the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), which undermined the authenticity and urgency of the case. The Supreme Court reiterated a fundamental legal principle: in criminal cases, any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, especially when the death penalty is at stake. This principle played a pivotal role in overturning the previous verdicts and ensuring that justice was served fairly.
The incident in question dates back to August 2019 in Sukkur, where the young boy, Mudassar, also known as Mithoo, tragically died after allegedly consuming poison. The child’s father, Sultan, also referred to as Babu Jatoi, was accused of administering the poisonous substance in front of witnesses. The case was initially filed by the child’s maternal uncle, leading to Sultan’s conviction and sentencing to death by the Trial Court. This sentence was later upheld by the High Court before being overturned by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
This judgment not only highlights the importance of thorough and impartial investigations but also serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility to safeguard the rights of the accused, particularly in capital cases. The Supreme Court’s decision reflects a commitment to upholding justice by ensuring that verdicts are based on solid, unambiguous evidence rather than conjecture or weak testimonies.
