NAWAB SIRAJ ALI Versus State

ORDER

MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.--- The petitioners, in the above titled petitions, were booked in case FIR No.591 dated 25.12.2012 registered under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) at Police Station Darakhshan, Karachi for the commission of murder of Shahzaib son of Aurangzeb. After investigation, all the accused faced the trial and on its conclusion, were convicted. Petitioners Nawab Siraj Ali and Shahrukh Jatoi were sentenced to death whereas Petitioners Nawab Sajjad Ali Talpur and Ghulam Murtaza were sentenced to imprisonment for life beside other sentences. They challenged their convictions and sentences by way of appeals before the High Court but failed to secure their acquittals, however, sentences of death awarded to Petitioners Nawab Siraj Ali and Shahrukh Jatoi were reduced to imprisonment for life. Hence the present petitions against their convictions and sentences.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset argued that it was not a pre-planned or pre-mediated occurrence and whole of the situation was developed at the spur of the moment; that the ocular account so furnished by the eye-witnesses is full of material contradictions and dishonest improvements which has shaken their credibility and their presence at the spot has also not been established. The medical evidence also does not support the ocular account furnished by PW.18 Mr. Muhammad Shah and PW.19 Muhammad Ahmed Zuberi. Learned counsel further argued that it was a late night occurrence and not a single piece of evidence suggestive of a case falling under ATA has been produced. Learned counsel further added that crime empties once sent to FSL on 31.12.2012 were taken back on 17.01.2013 and were submitted after alleged recovery of pistol. He asserted that there is no direct motive against the petitioners. Learned counsel stated that it is a case where provisions of ATA are not applicable and in this regard placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Bilal v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1362), Amjad Ali and others v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 661) and Farooq Ahmed v. State and another (2020 SCMR 78). Learned counsel has apprised that a compromise has also been effected between the parties but the same cannot be materialized because of their conviction under section 7, A.T.A. which is a non-compoundable offence.

3. To consider the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, leave to appeal is granted to all the titled petitions.

MWA/S-39/SC Leave granted.