SHC sets aside life terms of two Al Qaeda members

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday set aside the life imprisonment sentence of two members of a banned militant outfit in the naval officer murder case because the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused.

Tahir Hussain Minhas and Saad Aziz had been sentenced to life imprisonment by an anti-terrorism court for allegedly murdering a naval officer and injuring his wife in the Karsaz area on September 5, 2013.

According to the prosecution, the appellants along with other co-accused shot at Captain Nadeem Ahmed’s vehicle near the Karsaz bridge, resulting in the death of the officer and injuries to his wife.

The appellants’ counsel said his clients had been falsely implicated in the case by the police in order to make a show of their efficiency, adding that the testimony of the sole eyewitness could not be relied upon because he was a put-up witness. The counsel said that there was a legal defect in the identification parade of the appellants, while the injured eyewitness Dr Tracy was not examined by the prosecution, which did not even provide any explanation for dropping him as a witness.

He said that no medical certificate with regard to the injuries to the officer’s wife was produced before the trial court, while no recovery of weapon was made from the appellants. He requested the court to acquit them of the charges.

The additional prosecutor general, however, supported the impugned judgment. He made an attempt to explain that the appeal was without merit and so it should be dismissed. After hearing the arguments of the counsel and perusing the evidence of the case, an SHC division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha said the evidence of the eyewitness who was a chance witness could not be relied upon because there was contradiction in his statement and the prosecution’s version of the story.

The court said that the identification parade of the appellants was not conducted in accordance with the law and had taken place 16 days after their arrest without any explanation for the delay. The bench said that the injured eyewitness was also dropped by the prosecution without any explanation.

The court said the prosecution must prove its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt, adding that the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused by way of right as opposed to concession. The bench set aside the life imprisonment sentence of the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt, and ordered to release both men if they were not required in any other case.