Daniel Pearl murder case: SC questions reliability of confessional statements of accused

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court questioned how the confessional statements of the accused could be relied upon if those were not given voluntarily. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam heard the Sindh government and Daniel Pearl's parents' appeals against the SHC to acquit Pearl's alleged murderers.

Justice Sardar Tariq Masood noted that the confessions of the accused - Fahad Naseem and Salman Saqib - were not voluntarily but were given due to threat or inducement, therefore, the confessional statements were hit by Article 37 and 38 of Qanoon-e-Shadat. The judge observed that even Iram Jahangir, the judicial magistrate, who had recorded the statements of the accused, noted in statement that Fahad Naseem gave statement due to threats.

Farooq H Naek, representing the Sindh government, argued that the court had to see the truthfulness of the case. He said Fahad Naseem never stated that he was beaten by the police, while Salman Saqib stated that he was beaten at an earlier stage.

The counsel contended that the statements of the accused corroborate with the articles (scanner, printer, emails) recovered from them, and the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Justice Tariq said one accused stated that he had given the statement to save his life. He inquired if the confessions were managed then what would be its value in law.

Justice Yahya Afridi asked the counsel that you mean to say that even if the statements were not voluntarily, but if those are supported by other evidence then it has evidentiary value. During Thursday's hearing, Farooq Naek read the statements of Iram Jahangir, and Rajesh Kumar, a shopkeeper, who had sold printer and scanner to the accused.

The counsel told that on the next date, he would inform about the statement of Ronald Joseph, the FBI agent. The case was adjourned till Tuesday (Dec 15th). A division of the High Court, Karachi, heard the appeals together and delivered the judgment on 02-04-2020 acquitted the accused.

It also held that the subject case does not fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Omer Sheikh is entitled to both remissions in accordance with the law and the benefit of Section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Daniel Pearl was killed in Karachi in January, 2002. His wife Mariane Pearl on 04.02.2002 had filed an FIR at Artillery Maidan Police Station, Karachi.

Trial Court on 15-07-2002 convicted Ahmad Omer Saeed Sheikh and awarded him death sentence, while Adil Sheikh, Salman Saqib and Fahad Naseem were given life imprisonment under Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The convicts challenged the sentence in the Sindh High Court.

The State also filed Special Anti-Terrorism appeal for enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Adil Sheikh, Salman Saqib, and Fahad Naseem in the SHC. The Sindh prosecution on April 22 filed an appeal under Article 185(3) of Constitution in the Supreme Court, while the Daniel's parents - Ruth Pearl and Judea Pearl-on May 2 filed the constitutional petition.

It is their stance that the SHC wrongly held that the convictions and sentences awarded by the trial court to the respondents No 2 to 4 and Ahmed Omer Shaikh could not be sustained on the basis of the standard of proof, meaning that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020