Sarfraz Shah’s murder: Court to bring up formal charges on June 28

Defence lawyers may seek further delay at the next hearing.


Zeeshan Mujahid June 24, 2011

KARACHI:


Formal charges against the accused in Sarfraz Shah’s murder case could not be brought up by the court on Friday.


Anti-Terrorism Court-I Judge Bashir A. Khoso deferred the framing of charges till Tuesday, June 28. It is, however, possible that the court may not be able to do so on that day because a new lawyer has been appointed for four of the accused on state expenses. He may come in and seek further delays.

Six Rangers personnel and a civilian are in jail for allegedly killing a young man, Sarfraz Shah, in Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Park, Boat Basin, on June 8. The Supreme Court took suo motu notice and ordered the court to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis.

The law makes it mandatory upon a trial court to proceed only when all the accused are duly represented. The accused must also be present in cases when the alleged crime carries capital punishment. In the Rangers’ trial, the defence is taking advantage of this law.

During the hearing on Friday, the accused were produced before the Anti-Terrorism Court but four of them did not have a defence lawyer. The hearing was adjourned for 20 minutes after which the accused were told that Abdul Mateen Khan, a retired district and sessions judge has been appointed to represent them as “pauper accused”.

As the court moved on to frame the charges, the defense side started its arguments. They insisted on delaying the framing of charges until the seven-day term expires and that, in the absence of a counsel for the accused, the trial could not proceed any further.

The court put off further proceedings till June 28. Once the charges are framed, the court has a mandate to proceed on a day-to-day basis and conclude the same in seven working days.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 25th, 2011.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ