ISLAMABAD: The apex court on Monday accepting appeals of the Sindh government and Daniel Pearl's parents issued notices to the respondents, and extended detention of Umer Saeed Sheikh, who had allegedly beheaded the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) South Asia bureau chief.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mushir Alam, heard the Sindh government and Daniel Pearl's parents' appeals against the SHC verdict to acquit Daniel Pearl's alleged murderers. Farooq H Naik, Special Prosecutor General, Sindh, argued that the conspiracy was hatched when Ahmed Umer Saeed Sheikh, British-born Pakistani man, who is on death row, had met with Daniel Pearl in a hotel in Rawalpindi, and introduced himself as Muhammad Bashir.

Justice Qazi Ameen said for the circumstantial evidence all the events need to be interconnected. Who had seen and recognised the main accused, Umer Sheikh.

The Sindh prosecutor contended that in identification parade, the taxi driver had recognised Umer Sheikh.

Justice Amin said according to the prosecution's case, main statement was of the taxi driver. He questioned that Daniel's body was never found, and autopsy was never conducted, then how the taxi driver recognised him.

Farooq H Naek argued that the taxi driver had recognised Daniel Pearl with the help of pictures. Faisal Siddiqui, appearing on behalf of Daniel Pearl's parents, contended that filing of appeals by all the parties proves that the Sindh High Court's decision was wrong. The prosecutor general said Umer Sheikh was also involved in the hijacking of Indian plane, therefore, remained in jail in Indian-held Kashmir. The case was adjourned for one week.

Farooq Naek argued that the SHC had rendered judgment on seven points, including murder, kidnapping, recovery of body, and conspiracy surrounding the killing of the bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal in Pakistan.

He contended the SHC had ignored the findings of the trial court on these aspects.

Justice Qazi Muhammad Ameen Ahmed said they had to examine the case of Daniel Pearl's murder in totality of the circumstances, and the jurisprudence developed by this court.

Daniel Pearl was killed in Karachi in January, 2002.

His wife, Mariane Pearl on 4 February 2002 had filed an FIR at Artillery Maidan Police Station Karachi.

Trial Court on 15-07-2002 convicted Ahmad Umer Saeed Sheikh, and awarded him death sentence, while Adil Sheikh, Salman Saqib and Fahad Nasim 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 Nasim in the SHC.

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 Umer Sheikh, was entitled to both remissions in accordance with the law and the benefit of Section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. Umer Sheikh, who had already spent 18 years in prison on death row after being sentenced by an anti-terrorism court, was expected to be released after the high court verdict as his seven-year sentence was to be counted as time already served.

However, the Sindh government under Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) detained Umer Sheikh and four others, whose convictions had been overturned, till September 30th.

The Sindh prosecution on April 22, 2020 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 2nd 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 Umer 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.

They have submitted that these facts are admitted, first, the deceased person was abducted.

Second, the deceased person was abducted/kidnapped for ransom as ransom emails were received and recovered.

However, what is denied by the respondents No 2 to 4, and Ahmed Umer Shaikh is their role in sending the ransom emails but not the fact that the ransom emails were actually received.

Third, the deceased person was brutally murdered by way of beheading.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020