| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6768 2024 SLD 6768 = 2024 YLR 1636 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 08, 09 of 2022, Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 202 of 2021 and Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal Nos. 10 and 13 of 2022, decided on 8th November, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Mehmood A. Qureshi for Appellant (in Appeals Nos.202 of 2021 and 10 of 2022). Mansoor Mir for Appellant (in Appeals Nos.08 and 09 of 2022). Iftikhar Ahmed Shah for Appellant (in Appeal No.13 of 2022). Faisal Siddiqui for the Complainant (in all Appeals and Applicant in C.M.A. No. 12863 of 2022). Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh.
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 08, 09 of 2022, Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 202 of 2021 and Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal Nos. 10 and 13 of 2022, decided on 8th November, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Mehmood A. Qureshi for Appellant (in Appeals Nos.202 of 2021 and 10 of 2022). Mansoor Mir for Appellant (in Appeals Nos.08 and 09 of 2022). Iftikhar Ahmed Shah for Appellant (in Appeal No.13 of 2022). Faisal Siddiqui for the Complainant (in all Appeals and Applicant in C.M.A. No. 12863 of 2022). Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh.
MUHAMMAD RAHIM SAWATI and others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),201,202,109,34
Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: XXVII,11N,11V(ii)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 428
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 10A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 201, 202, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 11-N & 11-V(ii)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 428---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, intentional omission to give information of an offence, abetment, common intention, fund raising, directing terrorist activities--Application for adducing additional evidence in relation to the video recording of the interview of the accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of a lady who was a Director of a pilot project---Trial of the accused persons commenced on 07.11.2016 when the charge was framed and was completed on 17.12.2021 when the judgment in the trial was handed down---Trial had therefore taken about 5 years to complete and thereafter appeals were filed in December 2021 and January 2022 by the accused persons against their conviction which was about 6 years ago---Present case was a high profile case which was widely reported in both the print and electronic media---Video in question which was sought to be produced by the applicant was aired on TV News Channel in 2016 at the very initial stages of the trial as conceded by the complainant---Said video was therefore known and openly available to any member of the public from that date including the prosecution and the complainant if they had wanted to obtain it for the purpose of a trial which proceeded over a 6 year period---Person who recorded the video could have been traced out relatively easily at that time as it was a recent video and an application could have been made by the prosecution under S. 540, Cr.P.C., to the Trial Court to exhibit it through the evidence of its maker and enabled the accused persons to cross-examine it if it was deemed necessary--Authenticity of the video could also have been proven through forensic analysis as required under the law---Report of JIT clearly showed that the members of the concerned JIT had in their possession the evidence which the applicant sought now to adduce through the application---Therefore, that was not new evidence at all and was considered by a JIT whose report was exhibited by the prosecution at trial and…