SHC sets aside Shahrukh’s death sentence under ATA
By Jamal Khurshid
November 29, 2017
KARACHI: Sindh High Court on Tuesday set aside the death sentence of Shahrukh Jatoi and other co-accused in Shahzaib Khan’s gruesome murder case by an anti terrorism court observing that the terrorism laws were wrongly applied by the police and the proceedings of the anti-terrorism court against the appellants were not proper.
Shahrukh Jatoi along with Nawab Siraj Ali Talpur were sentenced to death while Siraj’s brother Nawab Sajjad Ali Talpur with his employee Ghulam Murtaza Lashari were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Anti-Terrorism Court on June 7, 2013 for murdering a private university student Shahzaib Khan on December 24, 2012.
The court declared that killing of Shahzaib Khan, who was murdered in DHA on December 24, 2012, was a case of “personal vendetta” and ordered that the trial proceedings be remanded back to sessions court for denovo trial.
“We find that this was a case of personal vendetta hence section 6 of Anti Terrorism Act was misapplied by the police as well as cognizance and trial was not proper,” SHC’s division bench headed by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar observed in its judgment. “Accordingly, impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded back to the sessions court for denovo trial,” it ordered.
The court observed that the trial court would be competent to decide the compromise application within the four corners of the law as well as other applications if filed before the trial court.
Prosecution alleged that Ghulam Murtaza Lashsari, an employee of Siraj Talpur, eve-teased Shahzaib’s sister resulting in a bickering between Shahzaib and Shahrukh Jatoi, Siraj Talpur and others, but the matter was resolved due to intervention of the Shahzaib’s father Aurangzaib Khan.
According to the prosecution, the accused followed Shahzaib, who left the house in his vehicle after the brawl, and later on instigation of absconding co-accused Asif Lund and Salman Jatoi, the accused Shahrukh Jatoi and Siraj Talpur made murderous assault on Shahzaib, with pistols at Khyaban-e-Beharia near Mubarak Masjid, who succumbed to injuries at Ziauddin Hospital.
The brutal killing of the Shahzeb allegedly by the persons belonging to influential families sparked public outrage and protest demonstrations by civil society and ultimately Supreme Court also took suo moto notice of the incident and ordered police to arrest the culprits and prosecute them without delay.
The appellants counsel argued that Supreme Court in recent Waris Ali case has held that crimes committed due to private revenge or to say traditional crimes could not be dragged into the fold of terrorism and terrorist activities. They submitted that the instant case is also a case of personal vendetta as concluded by the trial court in its judgment and argued that this case should have been tried by the Sessions Court instead of anti terrorism court.
The counsel for complainant Mehmood Alam Rizvi submitted that a compromise had also arrived between the parties but in accordance with the Waris Ali case this is not the case of terrorism so a compromise cannot be accepted.
Prosecutor General Shahdad Awan however contended that in this case the compromise application was filed under section 345 (2) and a trial court after recording evidence declared the compromise genuine. Shahrukh’s counsel Farooq H Naek submitted that trial court had wrongly concluded that appellant was not juvenile whereas he was juvenile as per his academic certificates.
Shahrukh Jatoi along with Nawab Siraj Ali Talpur were sentenced to death while Siraj’s brother Nawab Sajjad Ali Talpur with his employee Ghulam Murtaza Lashari were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Anti-Terrorism Court on June 7, 2013 for murdering a private university student Shahzaib Khan on December 24, 2012.
The court declared that killing of Shahzaib Khan, who was murdered in DHA on December 24, 2012, was a case of “personal vendetta” and ordered that the trial proceedings be remanded back to sessions court for denovo trial.
“We find that this was a case of personal vendetta hence section 6 of Anti Terrorism Act was misapplied by the police as well as cognizance and trial was not proper,” SHC’s division bench headed by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar observed in its judgment. “Accordingly, impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded back to the sessions court for denovo trial,” it ordered.
The court observed that the trial court would be competent to decide the compromise application within the four corners of the law as well as other applications if filed before the trial court.
Prosecution alleged that Ghulam Murtaza Lashsari, an employee of Siraj Talpur, eve-teased Shahzaib’s sister resulting in a bickering between Shahzaib and Shahrukh Jatoi, Siraj Talpur and others, but the matter was resolved due to intervention of the Shahzaib’s father Aurangzaib Khan.
According to the prosecution, the accused followed Shahzaib, who left the house in his vehicle after the brawl, and later on instigation of absconding co-accused Asif Lund and Salman Jatoi, the accused Shahrukh Jatoi and Siraj Talpur made murderous assault on Shahzaib, with pistols at Khyaban-e-Beharia near Mubarak Masjid, who succumbed to injuries at Ziauddin Hospital.
The brutal killing of the Shahzeb allegedly by the persons belonging to influential families sparked public outrage and protest demonstrations by civil society and ultimately Supreme Court also took suo moto notice of the incident and ordered police to arrest the culprits and prosecute them without delay.
The appellants counsel argued that Supreme Court in recent Waris Ali case has held that crimes committed due to private revenge or to say traditional crimes could not be dragged into the fold of terrorism and terrorist activities. They submitted that the instant case is also a case of personal vendetta as concluded by the trial court in its judgment and argued that this case should have been tried by the Sessions Court instead of anti terrorism court.
The counsel for complainant Mehmood Alam Rizvi submitted that a compromise had also arrived between the parties but in accordance with the Waris Ali case this is not the case of terrorism so a compromise cannot be accepted.
Prosecutor General Shahdad Awan however contended that in this case the compromise application was filed under section 345 (2) and a trial court after recording evidence declared the compromise genuine. Shahrukh’s counsel Farooq H Naek submitted that trial court had wrongly concluded that appellant was not juvenile whereas he was juvenile as per his academic certificates.
-
Everything You Need To Know About Macron’s Viral Glasses: Cost, Model, All Details Revealed -
Elon Musk Warns Of AI ‘supersonic Tsunami’: What It Means For Future -
Why Victoria Beckham's Dance Video From Brooklyn's Wedding Won't Be Released -
Prince Harry No Longer Focused On Healing Royal Family Feud? -
OpenAI Aims To Make AI A Daily Global Tool -
Will Andrew Receive Any Royal Treatment After Title, Royal Lodge Removal? -
How Your Body 'suffers' In Back Pain And Simple Way To Fix It -
What Victoria Beckham Really Did At Brooklyn, Nicola’s Wedding Revealed -
Send Your Name To Moon With Nasa’s Artemis Mission: Here’s How -
Zhipu AI, MiniMax Debuts Mask Structural Hurdles For China’s Tech Giants -
‘Stargate Community’: Inside OpenAI’s Plan To Cut AI Data Center Energy Costs -
Could Brooklyn Beckham Drop His Surname Following Family Feud? -
Rachel McAdams Becomes Object Of Jokes At Hollywood Star Of Fame Event -
South Korea's Ex-PM Han Duck-soo Jailed For 23 Years Over Martial Law Crises -
Global Markets On Edge Over Greenland Dispute: Is US Economic Leadership At Risk? -
King, Queen Visit Deadly Train Crash Site