SHC rejects appeal of cop’s murderer against life term

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday dismissed the appeal of a convict against his life imprisonment sentence in the case of a policeman’s killing.

Kausar, alias Munna, was sentenced to life imprisonment by an anti-terrorism court for murdering a cop during an encounter with the police on May 22, 2020. According to the prosecution, a police party on patrol had signalled the appellant and his companion travelling on a motorbike to stop after having found them to be suspicious, but instead of stopping, they sped up their vehicle and fired at the police.

The law enforcers retaliated, killing a suspect named Faisal and arresting Kausar in an injured condition. Police official Mehbood had also suffered a bullet and died at the hospital. The appellant’s counsel said that an FIR was registered after an unexplained delay, leading to the belief that the complainant had cooked up a false case against the appellant. He said that the alleged eyewitnesses were not even present at the site of the incident.

He also said that there were material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who had made up a story to save police constable Sohail, who had shot the deceased by mistake. He requested the court to acquit the appellant giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The Sindh additional prosecutor general supported the trial court’s judgment, saying that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and confidence-inspiring, while the empties recovered from the spot were matched with the pistol recovered from the appellant. He requested the court to dismiss the appeal.

After hearing the counsel’s arguments and perusing the evidence, an SHC division bench comprising Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi said that the prosecution witnesses were trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, while the prosecution proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

However, the SHC bench said the case did not fall within the purview of the anti-terrorism law as defined by the Supreme Court’s larger bench, according to which there has to be an object, intent, purpose and design to create terror on account of an act of terrorism.

The SHC said that the intent of the appellants was to rob people in the locality, but when they were confronted by the police, they fired at them to escape.

The bench said the firing had no object or intent to create terror, as the act of firing had the purpose of only escaping from the police, so they were acquitted of terrorism charges. But the court rejected the convict’s appeal, upholding the life term awarded by the trial court.