The judge hearing the Sarfraz Shah murder case is expected to announce today whether the trial can be transferred to an ordinary court or should continue to be tried in the anti-terrorism court.
On Friday, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), Muhammad Khan Buriro, responded to a challenge thrown down by the defence that has argued that as no terrorism was involved, the anti-terrorism laws do not apply. Sarfraz Shah was shot dead in Benazir Bhutto park by the Rangers on June 8. Six Rangers men and a civilian have been indicted.
Buriro argued that this was, in fact, a case by the nation and the mothers of those innocent victims, who fall prey to trigger-happy individuals in law enforcing agencies. This was an act of individuals, who brought a bad name to the country in the comity of nations, he argued.
He used the word “shaheed” or martyr, for Shah, strongly reacting to the repeated allegation by the defense that has been calling the 22-year-old victim a “dacoit”. The prosecutor argued that Shah was seen empty handed throughout the video footage. He was dragged by defendant Afsar Khan and was handed over to the Rangers in the park. Shah never tried to run away and was seen instead seeking pardon from the squad. When he was fired at and injured, he begged them to take him to hospital, the SPP said, adding that this act of omission by the defendents led to his death.
When all of this was broadcast on the news, the entire nation was left terrorised. Everyone, including MNAs and television anchors, were shocked and jolted when they saw the footage of how a young man was fired at and left to die in his own pool of blood, he said.
The SPP then brought up a Supreme Court order, which he argues already established jurisdiction. The highest court in the country had specifically directed that the case be tried by an ATC and not an ordinary court. The subordinate courts, including the high court, are thus bound by these orders, he submitted, vehemently opposing the defence’s plea to have the case transferred to an ordinary court such as a sessions court on the grounds that no element of terrorism was involved in this particular case.
Citing over a dozen case laws, including a leading one of Mehram Ali vs the State, the SPP submitted that even if no one were present at the time of an incident, if footage is aired, and if it terrorises people or a community, the Anti-Terrorism Act applies. Earlier, the court heard the arguments by the defense. Shaukat Hayat, who is representing the man accused of pulling the trigger, said that the rangers was doing their lawful duty to control violence when they took the “deceased dacoit” into custody. Shah tried to snatch a gun from the Rangers, who in fired in retaliation.
MR Syed, a senior defence counsel, argued briefly that his clients were innocent and fired at Shah in self defence. No one was present, no one was terrorised and thus it was triable by a sessions court, he submitted.
Judge Bashir Ahmed Khoso reserved the order in the four identical applications that were moved separately. He will make an announcement today, Saturday. If he rejects their petitions, the terrorism court will go ahead with the case and the person who registered the FIR will be examined as the first prosecution witness.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 2nd, 2011.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ