KARACHI: Alam Sher, younger brother of Naqeebullah Mehsud, on Monday challenged the acquittal of former Malir SSP Rao Anwar and his subordinates before the Sindh High Court.

The Sindh government is, however, still undecided whether to challenge the verdict of an antiterrorism court against the recalcitrant police officer in the extrajudicial killing of Naqeeb and three others in a staged encounter.

On Jan 23, an ATC exonerated the then SSP and 17 members of his team by extending them the benefit of the doubt.

Rao Anwar along with his around two-dozen subordinates was tried for allegedly killing Naseemullah, better known as Naqeebullah Mehsud, and three others in an alleged staged encounter in January 2018.

Appellant Alam Sher, through his counsel Jibran Nasir, submitted in the appeal against the ATC verdict that besides factual oversight and misreading of evidence there were legal incurable defects in the judgement.

Referring to a ruling of the Supreme Court, he stated that the trial court had erred in law by passing a consolidated judgement in three cases, as besides the main case the accused police officers were also booked in two other cases for foisting explosives and illicit weapons upon the victims.

While government is still undecided, Naqeeb’s brother files appeal against ATC verdict

Such amalgamation was made by the ATC even though the cases arose out of different FIRs and contained different sets of accused and prosecution witnesses, he maintained.

Advocate Nasir argued that in view of such jurisprudence, it was a settled law that the provisions of Section 21-M of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not authorise a court to amalgamate and jointly try separate cases arising out of different FIRs.

He contended that the trial court had failed to adjudicate the charges against the accused under Sections 201, 202 and 204 of the Pakistan Penal Code and such failure to specifically either convict or acquit an accused of every charge was an incurable defect.

The counsel was of the view that the ATC had also erred in discarding crucial evidence in the shape of the call data record (CDR) solely for the reason that no witness from the cellular company concerned had been produced and examined by the prosecution in support of the same and argued it was a settled law that non-production of a material witness could not be made a reason to disbelieve the prosecution story.

He maintained that the complainant side had expressly agitated such contention before the trial court for corroborating CDR and geo-fencing records through summoning and examining expert witnesses, but ATC had refused to call such witness and thus prosecution cannot be held liable for such lack of corroborative testimony.

The lawyer also stated that the charge of abduction was also discharged against the accused on the ground that no independent witness from the place of abduction was made a witness.

He added that the trial court might perform its duty under Section 540 of the CrPC to summon and examine any individual who in the court’s opinion may be necessary for ascertaining the truth.

Disregarding direct evidence of abduction and captivity as deposed by two key witnesses, the trial court concluded that such witnesses in their deposition had made multiple “dishonest improvements”, he maintained.

The counsel further contended that as per the trial court judgement, the delay in the registration of FIR and recording of statements of witnesses was fatal to the case, but it had failed to appreciate the peculiar circumstances involved in the case as pre-trial litigation involved right up to the apex court, formation of joint investigation teams and high-handedness of police as it was the police who had registered false cases against victims bearing a concocted narrative regarding subject incident before lodging of the present FIR.

He alleged that the accused persons had such influence and power that they effortlessly were able to abuse their authority to frame four innocent men as terrorists and showed their cold-blooded murder as a bona fide encounter and five fake FIRs, which were proved false, before the court.

The appellant pleaded to set aside the impugned judgement and convict the accused persons by awarding them the maximum sentence as prescribed under law.

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2023