At the heart of a killing, arguments over whether terrorism laws apply
Two men have confessed to killing a man and his driver on University Road on August 15.
KARACHI:
A case dealing with the alleged murder of two men spun into an argument about whether it was an act of ‘terrorism’. Was the attack a ‘targeted’ one because of the victim’s ethnicity or one triggered by a personal enmity.
On August 15, 2011, a man and his driver were shot dead at University Road. On September 17, two men were arrested after a police shoot-out and reportedly confessed to the murder. They were also reportedly identified by witnesses.
The case was heard in Anti-Terrorism Court I on Friday where the prosecution and defence argued over where the case should be heard in the Anti-Terrorism Court or a lower court, based on the nature of the murder.
The prosecution’s stance was that this was a ‘targeted attack’ on ethnic lines. Special public prosecutor Abdul Maroof cited from the relevant sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act and told the court that there was “no concept of enmity” in the case. “These two murders were based on ethnic reasons,” he said.
The defence counsel said that the murder was based on a “personal vendetta” and was not carried out for “ethnic or sectarian” motivations. His stance was that there have been many killings in the city but all of the First Information Reports have not been formed with the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The defence wants the case to be shifted to a lower court because it does not believe this was an act of terrorism. For one, the counsel said, the murder did not happen in a ‘public place’, because according to a report filed by the investigating officer, there was construction going on at one end and there were ‘bushes’ on the other end at the site of the murder. The complainant’s lawyer disputed this, and said that it was a public place where there is sizeable traffic.
The prosecutor also said that when the charge sheet of the case was placed before the administrative judge, he had formed an opinion and registered the case to be tried by ATC I. Since that opinion exists, “[it] cannot be transferred,” he said. “The First Information Report sections are compatible with the Anti-Terrorism Act.”
The two men implicated in the case – Sohail and Kashif – were reportedly arrested in what the police are saying was a shoot-out, on September 17, 2011. The cases have been combined and are being heard together. At the time, the police seized a Kalashnikov and 17 cartridges from the men. The murder case was filed by the Aziz Bhatti police station and the weapon charges were dealt with by the CID. Based on the First Information Reports (423/2011, 424/2011, 425/2011, 426/2011, 429/2011, 430/2011 and 518/2011) Sohail has been accused of assault or the use of criminal force to prevent public servants from doing their duty and attempted murder. The two men have also been accused of murder, common intention and violating the Arms Ordinance and the Explosives Act.
The court will issue an order on June 26.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 2nd, 2012.
A case dealing with the alleged murder of two men spun into an argument about whether it was an act of ‘terrorism’. Was the attack a ‘targeted’ one because of the victim’s ethnicity or one triggered by a personal enmity.
On August 15, 2011, a man and his driver were shot dead at University Road. On September 17, two men were arrested after a police shoot-out and reportedly confessed to the murder. They were also reportedly identified by witnesses.
The case was heard in Anti-Terrorism Court I on Friday where the prosecution and defence argued over where the case should be heard in the Anti-Terrorism Court or a lower court, based on the nature of the murder.
The prosecution’s stance was that this was a ‘targeted attack’ on ethnic lines. Special public prosecutor Abdul Maroof cited from the relevant sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act and told the court that there was “no concept of enmity” in the case. “These two murders were based on ethnic reasons,” he said.
The defence counsel said that the murder was based on a “personal vendetta” and was not carried out for “ethnic or sectarian” motivations. His stance was that there have been many killings in the city but all of the First Information Reports have not been formed with the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The defence wants the case to be shifted to a lower court because it does not believe this was an act of terrorism. For one, the counsel said, the murder did not happen in a ‘public place’, because according to a report filed by the investigating officer, there was construction going on at one end and there were ‘bushes’ on the other end at the site of the murder. The complainant’s lawyer disputed this, and said that it was a public place where there is sizeable traffic.
The prosecutor also said that when the charge sheet of the case was placed before the administrative judge, he had formed an opinion and registered the case to be tried by ATC I. Since that opinion exists, “[it] cannot be transferred,” he said. “The First Information Report sections are compatible with the Anti-Terrorism Act.”
The two men implicated in the case – Sohail and Kashif – were reportedly arrested in what the police are saying was a shoot-out, on September 17, 2011. The cases have been combined and are being heard together. At the time, the police seized a Kalashnikov and 17 cartridges from the men. The murder case was filed by the Aziz Bhatti police station and the weapon charges were dealt with by the CID. Based on the First Information Reports (423/2011, 424/2011, 425/2011, 426/2011, 429/2011, 430/2011 and 518/2011) Sohail has been accused of assault or the use of criminal force to prevent public servants from doing their duty and attempted murder. The two men have also been accused of murder, common intention and violating the Arms Ordinance and the Explosives Act.
The court will issue an order on June 26.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 2nd, 2012.