SC reserves ruling on triple murder case transfer
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam, heard the plea filed by the accused in the case
An AFP file image.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court reserved on Thursday its decision on a plea challenging the Sindh High Court's decision to transfer the trial of a triple murder case to an anti-terrorism court.
Union council chairperson Raees Karamullah Chandio and his two sons, Mukhtiar and Qabil, were shot dead in an armed attack on their house on January 17, 2018, in Mehar taluka, Dadu.
Pakistan Peoples Party MPA Nawab Sardar Khan Chandio and his brother Burhan Chandio are among the accused nominated in the case.
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam, heard the plea filed by the accused in the case.
During the hearing, Ume Rubab Chandio, daughter of one the slain men, maintained before the court that the murder was a case of political terrorism and was perpetrated to serve political interests.
According to the SC, terrorism can be classified on the basis of religious, ideological, and political differences and a party can use terrorism to maintain its chieftainship.
In reference to this particular case, the apex court termed the murder an act perpetrated to serve political purposes and an attempt at harming society.
However, the counsel for the accused, Sardar Latif Khosa, argued that since the accused and the deceased were close friends, the murder was more of a consequence of personal enmity than an act of terrorism, adding that it would have been categorised as political terrorism if the murders were a result of a conspiracy hatched to mar the political system. "In this case, the opposing parties belonging to separate tribes but the same family have been fighting to gain leadership," he added. He alleged that the clauses of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were included in the case to gain an upper hand and in turn, the leadership of a group.
The counsel further stated that when hearing a case booked under Section 302 (pertaining to murder) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, a sessions judge was authorised to exercise the same powers as the judge of an anti-terrorism court. Besides, the Sindh prosecutor general gave his consent to conducting a trial before a sessions court.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 22nd, 2020.
The Supreme Court reserved on Thursday its decision on a plea challenging the Sindh High Court's decision to transfer the trial of a triple murder case to an anti-terrorism court.
Union council chairperson Raees Karamullah Chandio and his two sons, Mukhtiar and Qabil, were shot dead in an armed attack on their house on January 17, 2018, in Mehar taluka, Dadu.
Pakistan Peoples Party MPA Nawab Sardar Khan Chandio and his brother Burhan Chandio are among the accused nominated in the case.
A three-member bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam, heard the plea filed by the accused in the case.
During the hearing, Ume Rubab Chandio, daughter of one the slain men, maintained before the court that the murder was a case of political terrorism and was perpetrated to serve political interests.
According to the SC, terrorism can be classified on the basis of religious, ideological, and political differences and a party can use terrorism to maintain its chieftainship.
In reference to this particular case, the apex court termed the murder an act perpetrated to serve political purposes and an attempt at harming society.
However, the counsel for the accused, Sardar Latif Khosa, argued that since the accused and the deceased were close friends, the murder was more of a consequence of personal enmity than an act of terrorism, adding that it would have been categorised as political terrorism if the murders were a result of a conspiracy hatched to mar the political system. "In this case, the opposing parties belonging to separate tribes but the same family have been fighting to gain leadership," he added. He alleged that the clauses of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were included in the case to gain an upper hand and in turn, the leadership of a group.
The counsel further stated that when hearing a case booked under Section 302 (pertaining to murder) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, a sessions judge was authorised to exercise the same powers as the judge of an anti-terrorism court. Besides, the Sindh prosecutor general gave his consent to conducting a trial before a sessions court.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 22nd, 2020.