KARACHI, Oct 11: The government has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Sindh High Court’s anti-terrorism appellate bench which had acquitted all the accused in Hakim Said murder case.

The Advocate-General Sindh, Raja Qureshi, has filed the appeal.

The appellants in the case were Mohammed Amirullah, Mohammed Shakir alias Shakir Langra, Nadeem Ahmed alias Nadeem Mota, Mohammed Faisal, Mohammed Zubair, Abu Imran Pasha, Muqarrab Ali alias Nazar, Mohammed Zubair, and Ezazul Hasan.

On June 4, 1999, the anti-terrorism court No VI, Karachi, had convicted the respondents and sentenced them to death for causing the death of Hakeem Mohammed Said and two others. They were also fined Rs100,000 each.

The petition is directed against the short order/judgment of the SHC anti- terrorism appellate bench, comprising Justice Ghulam Nabi Soomro and Justice Ataur Rahman, of May 31 in Criminal ATA Appeal No 34/99 (Amirullah & 6 others Vs the state).

The advocate-general has raised various law points which include as to whether the short order and the reasons dated 31. 5. 2001 and 18. 8. 2001, respectively, passed by the division bench (appellate bench) of the SHC at Karachi is sustainable in law and facts?

He has also raised the question whether the judges are justified in law and facts to discard the overwhelming ocular evidence against respondents No 1 to 4? Whether the bench was justified in rejecting the most natural eyewitnesses corroborated by identification parade?

He has also raised the question whether the judges of the bench were justified in discarding the confessional statement of the respondents and its corroboration by other pieces of evidence brought on the record? Whether in view of the fact that there was no delay in making the confession, and further the respondents/accused did not complain of any torture and or coercion after the confession was recorded until their examination in the court?

Mr Qureshi has also raised the legal point whether the evidence of recovery on the revelation of the accused persons the use of the said weapons at the time of the incident by all the accused having being fully corroborated by the expert evidence of forensic sciences laboratory backed by conspiracy, are not sufficient to prove the guilt of all the accused?

Whether the division bench was justified in law in disbelieving the strong evidence of approvers coupled with material corroboration? Whether the evidence of conspiracy to murder Hakeem Mohammed Saeed brought on record by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the charge under section 109 of PPC against the respondents?

He also wants to argue on whether the bench was justified in acquitting the accused/ respondents merely on technicalities and whether the principles of criminal jurisprudence are attached in the present case?

It is the case of the government that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned judges of the High Court is not sustainable in law and facts.

The appellate bench has seriously erred in law and facts in acquitting the respondents by discarding the well-written judgment of the trial court which is based on exhaustive examination of the facts and law involved in the case.

It is also his contention that the bench has not properly appreciated the overwhelming evidence produced by the prosecution in the shape of ocular evidence, recovery of the crime weapons at the indication provided by the respondents, confessional statements of the respondents and the natural, independent and most reliable eyewitnesses who had identified the main culprits in the identification parade as well as in the trial Court.

His case is also based on the premise that the complainant/first informant, Hakim Manzoor, being one of the injured witnesses, was the most natural eyewitness who had identified and fully implicated the respondents. The said respondents also confessed to their commission of the crime, yet the appellate bench disbelieved the evidence and acquitted the respondents.

The other eyewitnesses against whom there is corroboration of evidence of Hakim Manzoor has been disbelieved and the appellate bench has discarded their evidence, the reasons for it are not known. It is further submitted that neither there has been any enmity of the above eyewitnesses nor has it been suggested by the defence.

It is also his contention that the appellate bench is not justified in not taking into consideration the confessions of the accused/respondents who had not implicated themselves, but have also implicated the other accused who had confessed to the commission of the crime. The confessions are natural, voluntarily made without any delay and discarding them on mere technicalities is not justifiable under any canons of justice.

It is his contention that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond any shadow of doubt, the motive for the crime which was not seriously challenged by the defence, yet the appellate bench failed to take the same into consideration and disbelieved without assigning any reasons at present unknown to the petitioner.

It is also the claim of the AG that the judgment of acquittal by has resulted in failure of justice setting up an erroneous precedent, which needs to be rectified.

After three months of hearing, the anti-terrorism appellate bench in its short order had reflected its disbelief in investigation, the section 164 (CrPC) statements, and had demolished the prosecution’s contention with regard to recovery of arms and other evidence. The short order had also demolished the political premise of the motive for the murder, which had created political stir in the country and resulted in the collapse of the coalition government of the Pakistan Muslim League and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement.

In the detailed judgment, giving reasons for the acquittal, the appellate bench held that none of the witnesses gave any description or identifying marks of the assailants or had ascribed any specific role to the appellants identified by them beyond their picking up.

The bench also held that the version given by the complainant, Hakim Manzoor, was hardly consistent with the evidence of the ocular account of the occurrence given by Sarwar Baig (PW 2) and Wahid Bux (PW 3). The complainant was not able to say that 3/4 assailants who had fired indiscriminately upon them had fired from vehicle(s) or from the ground or whether the assailants had come in one or more vehicles or by foot. His subsequent statement recorded 5 days after the incident in the words that “he would be able to identify the assailants on seeing them is something in the shape of extraction.”

“Even if it be assumed that the PWs happened to see one or some of the assailants clearly, then again it cannot be denied - by these viewers that they just had a glimpse of the assailants,” the detailed order said.