The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the appeal of a convict against his sentence in a case pertaining to the killing of an intelligence agency official. The high court, however, commuted his death sentence into life imprisonment stating that the prosecution had failed to establish the motive behind the killing.
The SHC also set aside the conviction of two other co-accused due to lack of sufficient evidence. Mohammad Ali was sentence to death while Younus Khan and Noman, alias Kabari, were sentenced to life imprisonment by an anti terrorism court (ATC) for murdering Tanveerul Islam, an intelligence agency official, on November 12, 2023, in the Nazimabad area.
According to the prosecution, Islam and another man, Qasim Ali, were sitting near a bus stop when three persons came on a motorcycle and shot Islam dead. The eyewitness, Qasim, identified all the three accused as assailants and identified Mohammad Ali as the shooter who killed Islam.
A division bench of the high court headed by Justice Omar Sial after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that the prosecution witness had deposed that Mohammad Ali disembarked from the motorcycle and shot Islam dead. Noman and Khan accompanied the killer but no overt role was assigned to them.
The SHC observed that the trial court had erred in holding that the events of the incident and evidence produced at the trial showed that this was a case falling under the ambit of terrorism. The bench observed that the prosecution did not introduce a motive for the killing and for an offence to fall within the ambit of terrorism, it was essential to show that the conditions stipulated in the Section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act were met.
The high court observed that prima facie, personal vendetta may have been the reason for the unfortunate incident and the evidence did not reflect that there was a design or intent to cause terrorism.
The SHC observed that it was obvious that the incident was sudden, and though capable of responding similarly, Qasim could not retaliate with gunfire. The high court also observed that no motive for the killing was explained by either side.
The bench observed that the evidence produced at the trial hinged on Qasim’s testimony who deposed that the co-accused did not fire. The SHC observed that no evidence was presented at the trial to establish a pre-arranged plan or a prior meeting of the minds.
It was quite possible that the three accused had not set out from their homes with the common intention to kill Islam, the high court observed, adding that the failure to establish the motive at the trial tilted the balance in favour of the accompanying accused.
The SHC dismissed the appeal of Mohammad Ali but reduced his death sentence into life imprisonment due to lack of motive and lapses in identification parade process. The high court also set aside the conviction of the appellants under the anti-terrorism law observing that the case did not fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The bench also set aside the conviction of co-accused Khan and Noman stating that sufficient evidence had not been produced at the trial to make them vicariously liable for Mohammad Ali’s shooting.
The SHC observed that the deceased was a member of a premium intelligence agency and in their line of duty, many would want to harm the members of this agency. The high court observed that an attack was made on a member of the agency, and he died. It added that such attacks had a potential to demoralise our law enforcement agencies, which could not be allowed as it would adversely impact national security.