SHC sets aside MQM activist’s conviction in Rangers sepoy killing case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday set aside life imprisonment sentence of a Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s (MQM) activist in a 27-year-old Rangers soldier killing case observing that the prosecution had failed to prove its charges against him and due process of the law was not followed by the trial court.

Syed Obaid, alias K2, was sentenced to life imprisonment by an anti-terrorism court for killing Rangers sepoy Dildar Hussain and injuring Hawaldar Mumtaz Ali during an attack on a vehicle of the paramilitary force in the Liaquatabad area on July 2, 1998.

According to the prosecution, the appellant along with other MQM activists including Nadir Shah had fired on Rangers mobile while raising anti-state slogans, which resulted in the death of Hussain and injuries to Ali.

Nadir Shah, who had earlier been convicted by the trial court, completed his sentence on May 24, 2013, and was released from the prison, however, Obaid was tried later on by the ATC. A division bench of the high court comprising Justice Omar Sial and Justice Syed Fiazul Hasan Shah after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed that evidence produced at the trial court was able to prove that Obaid was present in the mob that allegedly attack the mobile of Rangers personnel, however, nobody saw him armed nor did anybody except one prosecution witness state that Obaid fired at the Rangers.

The high court observed that the trial court relying on the Article 47 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 convicted the appellant on the basis of documents and testimonies produced by the prosecution in the trial, in which Obaid was earlier sentenced in absentia.

The SHC observed that the Article 47 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat would not come to aid of the prosecution as provisos of such articles were not completely fulfilled. The bench observed that the statements of witnesses were neither presented before the trial court nor brought into the record in accordance with the law.

The SHC observed that in this case, the trial court based its judgment on conviction on earlier statements of the witnesses, which were not legally made before the court. The bench observed that a perception or reality concerning the appellant would not mean that he was deprived of his fundamental rights under the Article 10 and 10-A of the Constitution and he must be treated in accordance with the law.

The SHC observed that a judge could not be swayed by his own personal biases, prejudices and experiences when deciding cases. The high court observed that a judgment could not be based on perception unless the law warranted those perceptions.

The bench observed that the constitution guaranteed several rights to the citizens that could not be taken away and the appellant was also entitled to the same treatment unless Parliament said he was not and Parliament to date had not said that.

The high court observed that due process of the law was not followed in the trial court proceedings and the prosecution failed to prove its charges against the appellant. The SHC acquitted Obaid of the charges and ordered his release if he was not required in other cases.