• Bench details reasons for last month’s acquittal of two brothers sentenced to death in 2005 PIDC bomb blast case
• Observes investigations into the act of terrorism did not meet ‘most basic standards of fairness’
• Verdict was authored by Justice Athar Minallah who recently resigned over 27th Amendment

KARACHI: Declaring that the investigations into the 2005 PIDC bomb blast has failed to meet even the most basic standards of fairness, the Supreme Court has asked the federal and provincial government to make laws for providing compensation and rehabilitation of the victims of “miscarriage of justice” and for the accountability of those responsible for their plight.

A three-judge SC bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan gave this ruling in its detailed judgement on the appeals of two brothers who had been acquitted by the apex court through a short order in the PIDC bomb blast case.

The verdict was authored by Justice Minallah before he resi­gned as a judge of the apex court on Nov 13, criticising the newly passed 27th Amendment that has practically replaced the SC with the Federal Constitutional Court as the country’s apex judicial platform.

Last month, the Supreme Court had allowed the appeals of Mangla Khan and his brother Abdul Aziz Khan against the death sentence handed down by an anti-terrorism court in May 2007 and maintained by the Sindh High Court in April 2020.

According to the prosecution, the appellants masterminded and carried out a bomb blast outside the PIDC building in November 2005 that had left four people dead and 21 others wounded.

The bench deplored that the prosecution had failed to secure and tender the most crucial CCTV footage of the crime scene prior to the detonation of the improvised explosives device and such omission had raised a strong inference that the prosecution had deliberately withheld crucial evidence which may have demonstrated the innocence of the appellants.

It noted that both the appellants appeared to have been made scapegoats and condemned to spend prime of their lives behind bars and such tragic suffering was an indictment of the criminal justice system and a grave breach of the state’s duty of care towards its citizens.

“The respective governments may consider proposing legislation aimed at compensating, rehabilitating and assisting victims of miscarriage of justice and to hold public functionaries accountable when breach of duty on their part is established,” it ruled.

The bench said that the testimonies of two star witnesses were not confidence inspiring, arrest of appellants also remained shrouded in mystery and the identification parade was also not worthy of reliance while confessional statements of both the brothers failed to meet the standard of voluntary confession.

It noted that the magistrate who had recorded these confessional statements did not adopt precautionary measures emphasised in various judgements of the apex court to ensure voluntariness. The delay and surrounding circumstances created serious doubt that confessions were made voluntary, it added.

It said another most significant aspect of the case that raised serious questions regarding integrity and fairness of the investigation was the failure of the investigating officer in securing CCTV footage from all cameras as the only footage he obtained was a recording by a camera installed in front of the PIDC House.

“It is not disputed that this camera was functional, however the evidence shows that obtained footage was limited only to the moment of explosion and subsequent destruction,” it said and added that available evidence clearly suggested that the camera had recorded the entire sequence of events yet the IO offered no explanation as to why the entire footage was not obtained or preserved which could have shown presence of witnesses or perpetrators parking the car.

“This omission raises a strong inference that the prosecution had deliberately withheld crucial evidence which may have demonstrated the innocence of the appellants. Under Article 129 of the Order of 1984 an adverse inference can be drawn when evidence that exists and is available but is not produced at trial then if it had been produced it would not have supported the prosecution’s case. The prosecution had withheld the best available evidence,” it added.

The SC also expressed profound concern that the two appellants, who were young when apprehended, were compelled to endure over two-decade imprisonment despite the absence of evidence against them.

“The record reveals that the incident in question was a heinous act which claimed innocent lives, grievously injuring several citizens, and had also caused extensive damage to property. Yet, despite the gravity of the offence and the magnitude of its human and social cost, the investigation failed to meet even the most basic standards of fairness and diligence. No serious or meaningful efforts appears to have been made to trace or bring to justice the actual perpetrators of this atrocious crime. Instead, two young citizens, barely in their twenties and thirties, appear to have been made scapegoats and condemned to spend the prime of their lives behind bars,” the verdict reads.

The bench observed that with the kind of evidence presented by the prosecution, “this matter should not have proceeded beyond the stage of the SHC as the trial itself and the subsequent appeal before SHC had consumed an inordinate amount of time”.

Published in Dawn, November 18th, 2025