ISLAMABAD: Justice Athar Minallah on Friday observed that enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, custodial torture and murders, along with the excessive use of force, are among the most intolerable crimes in a democratic society.

“Such acts represent the gravest violations of the Constitution and the fundamental rights it guarantees to citizens,” he added in his dissenting note as part of a three-member SC bench that heard the appeal of Shadiullah, a Frontier Corps (FC) Balochistan sepoy, converting his death sentence to life imprisonment by a 2-1 majority.

The Balochistan High Court had earlier confirmed Shadiullah’s death sentence on April 27, 2023 in a case relating to the custodial killing of a university student.

However, in a detailed 26-page dissenting note, Justice Minallah disagreed with the majority verdict and upheld the death sentence.

Judge dissents with SC decision to convert FC man’s death sentence into life term in case of university student’s killing

He observed that there can be no tolerance for custodial killings or similar acts committed by law enforcement personnel, stressing that such conduct “would warrant imposing the severest punishment when guilt is proved”.

Justice Minallah’s remarks underline the apex court’s growing concerns over human rights violations and the accountability of state institutions involved in such practices.

He emphasised that strict punish-ment was essential to deter other law enforcement agencies from transgressing the law and to condemn heinous crimes such as extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

He held that retribution for the harm caused by the appellant could only be achieved by upholding the death sentence confirmed by the high court. “The reasons recorded by the trial court for handing down the death penalty were unassailable,” he added, observing that the appellant “does not deserve any leniency, compassion or mercy”.

The case pertained to the killing of Mohammad Hayat, a university student, who was shot dead while in the custody of FC Balochistan personnel in Turbat district on Aug 13, 2020.

Justice Minallah termed the incident “a gruesome, brutal and shocking” case of extrajudicial custodial killing of an innocent citizen.

The student was unarmed, visiting his parents, and had simply brought them breakfast as they were collecting dates.

The tragedy unfolded after two explosions targeted vehicles of FC Balochistan, a paramilitary force, injuring some of its members.

In the aftermath, Justice Minallah recalled, two uniformed armed members of FC Balochistan entered the date plantation after the explosions and took the unarmed victim into their custody.

Eyewitnesses, including the victim’s parents, testified that Hayat was dragged by his hair to a place where other FC personnel were present.

The appellant, Shadiullah, then took matters into his own hand and according to the dissenting note, forced the helpless victim to lay on the ground with his face down and then fired on his back eight times — using the automatic firearm weapon and bullets issued to him.

The execution-style killing took place as the victim’s parents pleaded for mercy.

Later, FC Balochistan itself identified Shadiullah as the perpetrator and handed him, along with the weapon used, over to the police.

According to the record, forensic analysis confirmed that the eight bullet casings recovered from the scene matched the rifle issued to Shadiullah.

He was also identified by the victim’s father in a parade and confessed before a magistrate.

The trial court convicted Shadiullah under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced him to death.

Referring to the FC’s role, Justice Minallah observed that its members were entrusted with protecting Pakist­an’s frontiers and the citizens within.

“Using an officially issued weapon to kill an unarmed, helpless citizen in custody is not just murder — it is a profound betrayal of this sacred duty,” he noted.

He warned that the rule of law is eroded when law enforcers “take the law into their own hands and arrogate to themselves the role of a judge and an executor”.

Justice Minallah concluded that the “harshest punishment” was justified in this case as an expression of society’s condemnation for the “cowardly conduct” of the appellant.

Published in Dawn, October 25th, 2025