KARACHI, July 13: The District and Sessions Judge, South, Zaheer Ahmed S. Leghari, on Friday acquitted the leader of the opposition in the Sindh Assembly, Nisar Ahmed Khuhro, and another PPP MPA, Syed Murad Ali Shah, in the Ishwar Lal case.
Mr Khuhro could not attend the court proceedings and his defence counsel, Shahadat Awan, filed an application for his absence on health grounds.Mr Khuhro is believed to be out of the country.
The remaining four accused -- Syed Murad Ali Shah, Muneer Abbasi, Mohammad Nawaz Chandio and Saleem Hingoro -- were present in the court.The judge, in his order, rejected the allegations against them and fixed August 22 for the indictment of the rest of the accused.
Defence attorney Shahadat Awan, district attorney Mohammad Rashid Khan and the complainant’s attorney Malik Naeem had completed their arguments in the case on June 23 and the judge had fixed June 30 for the pronouncement of his order.
But the date was later extended to July 7 and then to July 13 due to an application filed by the defence counsel for Syed Murad Ali Shah for the acquittal of his client on the same grounds. He had also filed another application under Section 265-D of the CrPC for shifting the case to a magisterial court, which was rejected by the judge.
‘Mala fide intentions’
The counsel, Mohammad Ashraf Qazi, argued that his client was not nominated as accused in the original FIR; rather, his name was included later on, which clearly showed mala fide intentions.
He stated that the man nominated in the FIR by the name of Murad Ali Shah was a resident of Bharia City, Nushehro Feroz. However, his name was removed under Section 265-K of the CrPC and the name of Syed Murad Ali Shah, hailing from Sehwan, was included in the FIR.
The counsel claimed that his client was implicated in the case by the government with the intention of tarnishing his image.
The district attorney told the court that audio cassettes were available to prove Syed Murad Ali Shah’s involvement in the attack by a group of PPP MPAs on Ishwar Lal during the proceedings of the assembly.
Earlier, the district attorney and the complainant’s attorney vehemently opposed Khuhro’s acquittal plea.
They argued that the incident was instigated by the leader of the opposition who was present at the spot at that time. The prosecution lawyers also submitted that Mr Khuhro went outside the assembly hall a little before the incident.
The defence lawyer, however, argued that the name of his client was not mentioned in the inquiry conducted by the Sindh Assembly secretary.
‘Political victimisation’
“Nor was his name mentioned in the ruling of the assembly speaker,” he stated. Shahadat Awan submitted to the court that the case against Nisar Khuhro was the worst example of political victimisation of the opposition leader at the behest of the ruling party.
He contended that from the material on record, no case against Mr Khuhro could be made and there was no likelihood that he would be convicted of an offence.
He argued that the aim of implicating the leader of the opposition in the provincial assembly was to keep him busy in courts and legal matters, and that it was an attempt to tarnish his reputation and to stop him from struggling for democracy.
The defence counsel contended that no role or injury was alleged to his client and there was not a shred of evidence to connect him to the alleged offence. He submitted that the trial of the accused was unnecessary harassment and abuse of the process of law and an exercise in futility.
“The present case has been registered with ulterior motives of the ruling party. It is maliciously motivated to harass opponents,” he added. He argued that one of the accused had been acquitted under Section 265-K of the CrPC and the case of his client was on better footing.
He said the FIR was false and concocted. The defence counsel argued that the police had no jurisdiction to entertain the report of the complainant as the speaker of the assembly had already taken notice of it and announced his ruling to this effect.
“In such circumstances, the inquiry or investigation by police is in violation of the Constitution, and also amounts to contempt,” he added.
The counsel further argued that the FIR had been lodged in violation of the provisions as contained in the Provincial Assembly Privileges Act, 1972, after deliberations and with an unexplained delay of six days.
The accused were booked by the Preedy police under Sections 324, 506-B, 109 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for attempted murder on the complaint of the ruling party MPA on June 26.
Complainant’s view
The complainant alleged that he had terms with PPP MPA Ms Shazia Marri and also exchanged gifts and greetings with her during his festivals. He said he was told about the illness of Ms Marri and on June 21 he inquired after her wellbeing through a written note during the assembly session.
The ruling party MPA alleged that the female MPA read the note and later gave it to the leader of the opposition, who, along with Ms Marri and other PPP MPAs, left the assembly hall.
“After a short while, Syed Murad Ali Shah, Muneer Abbasi, Mohammad Nawaz Chandio, Saleem Hingoro and other MPAs returned, along with eight to 10 men. They told me that they would not spare me alive,” he alleged. Mr Lal further alleged that the PPP MPAs then started beating him and kicking him and tried to kill him. He said in the meantime Mahi Khan Wasan, Abdur Razzaq Dahmoo and other MPAs rescued him.
He reported to the police that he was scared after the incident and confined himself to his house for a few days.
The charge read: “That on June 21, 2006 at about 12:30pm inside (the) Sindh Assembly Hall building you all intentionally and knowingly and in furtherance of your common intention, while abetting the commission of offence, attempted to commit Qatl-i-Amd of complainant Ishwar Lal by pressing his neck and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324/34/109 PPC and within the cognizance of this court.
“I hereby further charge you all that on the aforesaid date, time and place you all, in furtherance of your common intention and while abetting the commission of offence aforesaid, served the complainant with threats of dire consequences, thereby attracting the provisions of Sections 506 (B), 34 and 109 of the PPC, and within the cognizance of this court. I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the aforesaid charges.”