SHC sets aside convictions under ATA in appeals in police encounter case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) had dismissed the appeal of three convicts in a police encounter, attempt to murder and illegal weapons case but set aside their conviction under anti-terrorism charges.

The appellants, Abdullah, alias Sunny, Abdul Qadir and Noor Hakeem were sentenced to five-year imprisonment each for firing on police party and possessing illegal weapons. According to the prosecution, the appellants had opened fire on a patrolling police party that had ordered them to stop in the Machar Colony area on October 15, 2023.

As the police team returned fire, Abdullah sustained injuries. He and Qadir were arrested at the scene and illegal weapons recovered from their possession. The other appellant, Hakeem, managed to escape but was later arrested.

Their counsel submitted that the case against them was not one of terrorism and that he would not argue the case on merit. He requested that the prison terms already served by the appellants be treated as their final sentence.

A division bench of the high court theaded by Justice Omar Sial after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that in the instant case, no evidence was produced at the trial to establish that the ingredients of the Section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the anti-terrorism law were satisfied.

The high court observed that it was also evident from the facts of the case that no design or intent was established for the offence to be categorised as a terrorism offence and the prosecution failed to justify the conviction under the Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was accordingly set aside.

The SHC observed that the case against the appellants falling outside the ambit of terrorism meant that they would be entitled to the Section 382-B remissions. The high court observed that the jail roll of the appellants was called from the central prison, which showed that Abdullah had completed four years, 10 months and 16 days, Qadir had three years, 11 months and 25 days and Hakeem had three years, four months and 27 days of their sentence.

The high court observed that an additional prosecutor general had conceded that the sentences already served by the appellants were an appropriate punishment. The SHC observed that while considering the request made by the appellants, it also considered that the appellants were remorseful and repentant for what they had done, and wished to spend the rest of their lives as law-abiding citizens.

The high court observed that the appellants’ admission had saved the time and money of the state and the jail authorities had reported that their conduct in jail had been satisfactory. The bench observed that the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants for the offences under the penal code and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 were maintained but the sentences awarded to them were reduced to the period they had already undergone and this would also include imprisonment instead of fines. The SHC observed that all the appellants may be released if their custody was not required in any other case.