SHC seeks trial court record in Mustafa Amir murder case

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has sought a progress report from the trial court in the Mustafa Amir murder case after the victim’s mother approached the court over the delay in proceedings.

A bench comprising Justice Iqbal Kalhoro and Justice Abdul Rehman directed the trial court to submit the case record and provide a report on the progress of proceedings and the reasons for adjournments by the next hearing.

During the hearing, the bench questioned why the trial had not progressed despite the seriousness of the case.

Counsel for the accused said Armaghan was facing several criminal cases and that Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code had been added to the case.

The lawyer told the court that proceedings had allegedly been delayed because of repeated tactics by the accused. He said hearings had been disrupted on various occasions, including disputes between the accused and his parents and the absence of defence counsel. He also said the defence had at one stage expressed a lack of confidence in the trial court.

The court observed that if the accused was responsible for delaying the proceedings, the trial court and prosecution should take effective measures to ensure the trial proceeded without unnecessary adjournments.

Justice Kalhoro remarked that the accused was in custody and could remain imprisoned for years if the proceedings continued to be delayed.

Counsel said the case was of a serious nature but that hearings had largely resulted in repeated dates being fixed. He requested that the trial be concluded at the earliest possible opportunity.

The court said it would issue appropriate directions to the trial court and prosecution to ensure the proceedings were conducted expeditiously.

Read more: Mustafa Amir murder case: Charges framed against Armaghan, Shiraz

Justice Abdul Rehman asked whether a medical board had been constituted to assess the accused’s psychological condition following an application seeking a medical examination.

Counsel replied that no medical board had yet been constituted.

The bench also asked whether charges had been framed in the case. It directed the complainant to approach the trial court formally and seek an early conclusion of the proceedings.

The court cautioned that prolonged delays could affect witness testimony, as witnesses might forget important details if proceedings continued for years.

Counsel said an application had already been filed and that the complete record was available in the case diary.

The SHC sought the relevant record and progress report from the trial court and adjourned the hearing.