SHC sets aside death sentence of two LeJ activists

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday set aside the death sentence of two activists of the banned Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) in 16-year-old Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (Suparco) bus killing case by extending them the benefit of the doubt.

Shahnawaz, alias Shani, and Mohammad Shaukat with absconding co-accused Asif Choto were sentenced to death and other rigorous imprisonment on October 31, 2006 for attacking with automatic weapons a Suparco bus on Hub River Road carrying employees for Friday prayers.

Six people were killed while seven people, mostly belonging to the Shia community, were injured in the attack that took place on October 3, 2003. Police had arrested the appellants on October 23, 2003 for their involvement in sectarian killing cases.

The appellants’ counsel submitted that they were falsely implicated in the case as there was no direct evidence against them to prove the allegations of firing on the bus of Suparco. They submitted that the complainant did not mention description of the appellants at the time of the registration of FIR while the identification test parade was not conducted as per the criteria laid down by the superior courts.

It was submitted that eyewitnesses’ testimonies could not be relied upon as trustworthy evidence and the benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellants who had been languishing in prison for the last 16 years.

It was argued from the appellants’ side that empties of bullets were sent to a forensic laboratory after the delay of one month without any good reason. The SHC was requested to set aside the conviction.

A deputy prosecutor general opposed the appeals of the convicts and submitted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt by producing 26 witnesses, including six eyewitnesses, to prove the guilt of the accused. He submitted that evidence and statements of eyewitnesses could be safely relief upon who identified the appellants as those who committed the offence.

A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha after hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusal of the evidence observed that it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and it is not for the accused to disapprove the case against him who may take as many defences as he likes to the allegations against him. The high court observed that onus rests on the prosecution to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and if there was any doubt in the prosecution case, the benefit must go to the accused.

The SHC observed that the prosecution had not been able to safely identify the appellants as being the persons who committed the offence. The high court observed that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellants for the offence they had been charged with beyond a reasonable doubt and as such the appellants were acquitted of all the charges in the impugned judgment by extending them the benefit of the doubt.

The SHC observed that the country was passing through a difficult phase in terms of law and order and terrorism both within and outside the country but it still remains a duty of the courts to be watchful to ensure that an innocent person’s liberty is not sacrificed on the alter and mantra of war against terror or public outrage at a particularly heinous offence such as in this case where so many people were brutally murdered in a pre-mediated cold-blooded manner on account of their faith. The high court observed that only those against whom there was reliable, credible, trustworthy and cogent evidence of their guilt in respect of particular offence should be convicted of the same.

The bench observed that a person is innocent until proven guilty and it is on such principles that the edifice of the criminal justice system rests and it is the duty of the courts to sacredly and jealously ensure that such principles are followed without fear or favour whatever the outcome of the case may be. The court observed that such conduct of the courts will go along way in ensuring that the rule of the law is maintained and the public have faith and confidence in the criminal justice system whatever their station in the life may be. The court set aside the death sentence and other punishment of the appellants and ordered their release if not required in other cases.