he prosecution was unable in the Naqeebullah murder case to present sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused policemen beyond a reasonable doubt. This can occur for various reasons, including the absence of eyewitnesses, weak physical evidence and inconsistent testimony. The failure to prove the case can result in a not-guilty verdict, which acquits the defendant and precludes further prosecution for the same crime. Alternatively, a mistrial may be declared and the case may be retried at a later date. Regardless of the outcome, the burden of proof always rests with the prosecution in a criminal trial.

An anti-terrorism court acquitted former police officer, Rao Anwar, in the Naqeebullah murder case. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The concluding paragraph of the judgment states that in granting the benefit of doubt to the accused, the court recognised that a single circumstance leading to genuine doubt is enough to warrant an acquittal. It is not necessary to have multiple lacunae to create doubt.

During the protracted trial, a total of 60 witnesses, including five eyewitnesses, had recorded their testimonies before the court. As per the judgment, the anti-terrorism court proceeded with the case in three parts: Naqeeb’s abduction, his unlawful detention and his subsequent extrajudicial killing.

In accordance with the judgment dated January 23, the court acquitted a total of 18 accused, including Rao Anwar. Of the 18, six were already on bail. The remaining 12 were in custody. The court acquitted them of the charges under Section 265-H (i) Cr.P.C. However, the court issued perpetual warrants for the seven absconding accused.

As per Para 8 of the judgment, the anti-terrorism court settled the legal points in the following ways to determine the case.

S.No. Points

Findings

1 Whether Naqeebullah, Muhammad Ishaque, Nazar Jan, and Muhammad Sabir were killed on 13.01.2018 in an intentional extrajudicial police encounter followed by the registration of police FIRs which were disposed of in B-Class? In affirmative

2 Whether on 3rd or 4th of January 2018 deceased Naseebullah along with his two friends namely Muhammad Qasim and Hazrat Ali were abducted from Agha Gulsher Hotel, Chapel Garden, Abu-ul-Hassan Isfahani road, Karachi? Not proved

3 Whether the deceased Naqeebullah, Hazrat Ali and Muhammad Qasim were after their abduction detained at an Abbas Town police checkpoint and tortured thereafter, until Hazrat Ali and Muhammad Qasim were released while Naqeebullah was handed over to accused Rao Anwar by co-accused Ali Akbar and others? Not proved

4 Whether the accused on 13.01.2018 directly participated in firing at the deceased and killing Naseebullah, Muhammad Ishaque, Nazar Jan and Muhammad Sabir? Disproved

5 Whether the accused have aided or abetted the killing of four persons namely Naqeebullah, Muhammad Ishaque, Nazar Jan and Muhammad Sabir S/o Muhammad Bux. Not proved

6 Whether the accused could present the weapons and explosives they purportedly recovered from the deceased persons to suggest their false encounter had been genuine i.e. FIR No.120/2018. As under

7 What should the judgment be? The accused are acquitted

In Paragraph 58 of the judgment, the court analysed the evidence presented by the prosecution in the case. The court identified 22 shortcomings in the prosecution’s case, where they failed to prove the abduction and captivity. Additionally, there were contradictions, defects and a lack of evidence to support the charge of murder against the accused. The prosecution needed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the concluding paragraphs, the court referred to universal laws and Islamic jurisprudence regarding the benefit of the doubt. The court cited the principle that “the mistake of a judge in releasing a criminal is better than the mistake of punishing an innocent” (Ayub Masih v. State PLD 2002 SC 1048).

The former SSP was accused of abetting the victim’s kidnapping for ransom and murder, and attempting to conceal these illegal acts by falsely labeling the victim as a militant. The defence lawyers argued that due to numerous discrepancies in the witness statements, the accused should be acquitted. According to court documents, “geo-fencing, a technical analysis of call data records and circumstantial evidence suggested the involvement of Rao Anwar in the extrajudicial killings.” “Anwar in his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code admitted that he had knowledge of the matter and led a convoy to the crime scene after being contacted by the SHO Shah Latif Town,” the prosecution argued.

As per the prosecution’s case, Rao Anwar’s presence at the crime scene and near the New Sabzi Mandi on the Super Highway was demonstrated by the call data record from January 4, 5, 8, 9, and 13. However, in his statement, Rao Anwar denied involvement in the extrajudicial killings, stating that he was not present at the scene during the incident and did not visit the New Sabzi Mandi between January 4 and 6, 2018. He claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case based on manipulated geo-fencing and call data records, at the instigation of a senior police officer with whom he had a professional rivalry. The former SSP had evaded law enforcement officials for two months before surrendering before the Supreme Court and being taken into custody. Instead of being kept at the Central Jail, he was transferred to a house-turned sub-jail in the Malir cantonment area. He was ultimately released on bail in July 2018.

“The government has to ensure that cogent evidence to support prosecution is collected and presented in the court. Since sufficient evidence in terms of reliability, cohesion, trustworthiness has not been collected and produced regarding happening of incident of abduction of abductees Hazrat Ali, Muhammad Qasim and deceased Naqeebullah, no sufficient reliable evidence beyond reasonable shadow of doubts regarding participation of the present accused in the fake police encounter and their sharing of common intention with absconding accused is produced, the right of benefit of doubt cannot be withheld even in high profile cases like this one.”

The judgment identified a variety of shortcomings on the part of the prosecution, which ultimately resulted in a favourable outcome for Rao Anwar and the other accused. In Paragraph 58 of the judgment, the court identified twenty-two contradictions and highlighted the investigative lapses. The court emphasised that the number of gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case created ample grounds for acquittal.

The impact of flawed investigations on legal proceedings can be significant. Poor or unethical investigative practices may render evidence inadmissible in court, affect the credibility of a case, and lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals. Delays in legal proceedings and increased costs may also result from a flawed investigation. Therefore, it is essential to conduct investigations thoroughly, objectively and in compliance with legal and ethical standards to ensure a fair and just outcome. In the Naqeebullah murder case, the investigation and prosecution failed to prove their vital role during the investigation of the abduction and captivity incident. The charge of murder against the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There were several contradictions and defects in the prosecution’s case that were not discussed or reproduced to avoid prejudice against the absconding accused. These factors ultimately led to the decision to acquit the accused.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court and a PhD scholar