The Supreme Court will start hearing appeals against the Sindh High Court judgment to acquit the accused involved in murder of Daniel Pearl, bureau chief of Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in Pakistan from Monday (June 1).
The Sindh High Court on 2 April 2020 acquitted Adil Sheikh, Salman Saqib, and Fahad Nasim, and modified the sentence of Ahmed Omer Saeed Sheikh, and convicted him under Section 362 PPC, and sentenced him to seven years in RI with a fine of Rs2,000,000/.
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 July 2002 convicted Ahmad Omer Saeed Sheikh, and awarded him death sentence, while Adil Sheikh, Salman Saqib and Fahad Nasim were given life imprisonment under Section 7 of the 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 Omer Sheikh is entitled to both remissions in accordance with law and the benefit of Section 382-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
The Sindh prosecution on April 22, 20 filed an appeal under Article 185(3) of Constitution in the Supreme Court, while the Daniel's parents on May 2 filed the constitution petition.
It is the stance of Daniel's parents that the SHC in the impugned judgment has 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.
They have submitted that these facts are admitted, firstly, the deceased person was abducted.
Secondly, 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 Omer Shaikh is their role in sending the ransom emails but not the fact that the ransom emails were actually received.
Thirdly, the deceased person was brutally murdered by way of beheading.
They further submitted that a bare reading of the impugned judgment makes it evident that the impugned judgment creates an artificial distinction between the offences of kidnapping for ransom, and abduction in the facts of this case.