KARACHI: The case pertaining to the murder of TV anchor Mureed Abbas took a new turn on Monday when an antiterrorism court ruled that the offence did not fell within its ambit and transferred the trial to a sessions court.
The ATC-I judge sent the matter to the district and sessions’ judge (South) for conducting trial of held suspect Atif Zaman in the anchor and his friend’s murder case.
Police booked and arrested Zaman for allegedly killing his two business partners — Mureed Abbas and Khizar Hayat — in Khayaban-i-Bukhari, Defence, on the night of July 9.
Earlier, Judicial Magistrate (South) Abdul Raqeeb Tunio had referred the case to the administrative judge of the ATCs on Aug 20 for further trial observing that the matter fell within the ambit of terrorism.
The magistrate had accepted the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer, who had incorporated Section 7 (punishment for acts of terrorism) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in addition to the murder charge.
The judge rules that facts suggest Mureed Abbas was killed due to ‘unpleasantness’ on account of his investment
On Monday, the ATC-I judge allowed the application of suspect Zaman through which he sought transfer of the case to a sessions’ court.
The judge ruled that there was no allegation in the FIR that the suspect caused death of victim Abbas just because he belonged to the media.
He added that the facts suggested that the deceased was killed due to unpleasantness between the parties on account of investment of the deceased with the suspect.
The motive of the killing appeared to be personal and the act of killing was not designed to cause death of deceased as a media person to create terror in society, the judge ruled.
The judge further mentioned that the offence of killing had no nexus with the object within the meaning of Section 6(C) of the ATA. The mere fact that the incident had taken place in a posh area and it created a sense of terror in the society cannot bring the case within the ambit of Section 6 of the ATA, the court ruled.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgement in which the apex court had held that the special jurisdiction under the ATA had been created to deal with the situations enumerated in Section 7 thereof, the ATC judge said: “Personal pursuits and vendettas, carried out through violence fell outside the ambit of Section 6 of the ATA.”
He added that the victim was killed for personal vendetta and that act did not fall within the jurisdiction of the ATC.
The judge concluded that the facts of the present case did not attract the application of Sections 6 and 7 of the ATA, 1997, therefore, it was not exclusively triable by this court.
Allowing the suspect’s application, the judge transferred the case to the court having jurisdiction.
Earlier, defence counsel Shafqat Tanoli argued in the application that his client was innocent, who had not committed the offence alleged by the prosecution, adding that the complainant implicated Atif Zaman in the present case with mala fide intentions for ulterior motives.
On the other hand, the special public prosecutor opposed the plea contending that the offence allegedly committed by the applicant had created a sense of fear and insecurity in society.
Published in Dawn, October 1st, 2019