Verdict not written by judge: defence
HYDERABAD, July 15: Abdul Waheed Katpar, senior defence counsel for Ahmed Omer Saeed Sheikh, has said the verdict in the Daniel Pearl murder case had been written by someone other than the presiding judge of the anti-terrorism court.
Talking to Dawn by phone from Karachi on Monday, he said if one went through the dictation the judge gave to the steno during the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecution and defence witnesses, various mistakes would come to the fore. Katpar did not attend the court on Monday.
He said his presence was not necessary.
Katpar maintained that only those points and contentions raised by the state counsel had been incorporated in the judgment and the judge had not given his own observations.
He claimed that the verdict was written by someone else and was handed over to the judge for pronouncement. “It is a good case for appeal in the high court,” he remarked.
Katpar expressed satisfaction over the proceedings of the trial and said certain orders passed by the judge were fair.
MOHSIN IMAM: Junior defence lawyer of Ahmed Omer Saeed Sheikh, who was present in the courtroom when the verdict was pronounced, said he respected the judgment despite the fact it was against his expectations.
Talking to Dawn, he said the defence side had destroyed all the prosecution witnesses but it appeared that the judge remained unconvinced. He said an appeal would be filed in the Sindh High Court in seven days.
RAI BASHIR: Defence counsel for co-accused Rai Bashir Ahmed said the co-accused had been convicted without any substantive piece of evidence and under the pressure of the government.
The counsel said he was expecting such a verdict. He maintained he would file an appeal against the verdict within seven days as stipulated under the law.
In his post-judgment comments on Monday on the premises of central jail, the counsel said he had strong reasons to believe that the judgment was the outcome of the government pressure.
He, however, said the trial of the case was fair and in accordance with the requirements of the law.