Arguments in Pearl case conclude: Verdict on Monday
HYDERABAD- The Anti-terrorism Court judge, Syed Ali Ashraf Shah, on Wednesday reserved the judgement in the Daniel Pearl kidnapping and murder case until Monday after the defence counsel, Rai Basheer Ahmed, summed up his arguments and the chief prosecutor, Raja Qureshi, responded with concluding arguments at the in-camera trial, held inside the central prison here on Wednesday.
Mr Ahmed prayed to the court that all the evidences against his clients were weak and that the statements of the prosecution witnesses could not be corroborated. He appealed to the court to acquit the accused as the prosecution had failed to prove that they had committed any offence.
The Advocate General of Sindh, Raja Qureshi, who is also the chief prosecutor in the case, responded to the arguments by the defence counsels against the evidences and prayed to the court to award capital punishment to all the four accused.
He claimed that there were overwhelming and incriminating evidences adduced by the prosecution and that all the charges against the accused had been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
Briefing newsmen after Wednesday’s hearing, the chief prosecutor said that the court would have to view acts of terrorism with a critical eye and not to get swayed by technicalities, which did not dilute the effect of the prosecution evidence.
Brushing aside the statement of a woman judicial magistrate, who had remarked that the ‘confessional statements’ of the two co-accused – Fahad Naseem and Salman Saqib – were not voluntary, Raja Qureshi said that her remarks were nothing but a concession in favour of the accused.
She did not depose anything against the prosecution during her cross-examination, he pointed out.
Referring to the defence counsel’s claim of anomaly with regard to the laptop, allegedly recovered from the possession of one of the co-accused, Mr Qureshi pleaded that date of Feb 4 could be ignored as it was not only unnatural but impossible and improbable because Mariane Pearl, wife of the victim, had filed her complaint on Feb 4 to enable police start and continue investigations.
Regarding another argument about the date of the laptop’s recovery, he explained that a presumption could be drawn about a typographical mistake by Ronald Joseph, who had jotted down notes after examining the laptop and subsequently left for Washington. Thus, he added, Feb 11 as the date of the laptop’s recovery was correct.
About the video cassette, containing film of Daniel Pearl’s murder, the prosecutor said: “When it comes to the admissibility of this article as evidence, it is to be governed and regulated by Article 164 of Qanoon-i-Shahadat, an evidence obtained through modern devices for which author or maker is required to prove it.”
Why defence wanted to disprove genuineness of the document, produced as videocassette, if it was fake, he questioned.
He said that the cameras, used to take snaps of Mr Pearl, were in fact ‘crime weapons’ but could not be recovered by police. However, he added, the prosecution witness, Arif, and the relevant receipts were produced before the court and that the seller had identified his customers, Salman Saqib and Fahad Naseem.
Regarding reported statement of the principal accused, Omar Sheikh, before another Anti Terrorism Court (ATC) Judge, Arshad Noor Khan, the chief prosecutor referred to the Sheikh’s utterances carried by print media and argued that the same were basis for the criminal transfer application 91/2002, filed by the defence before the Sindh High Court.
He further argued that the Sindh High Court (SHC) transferred the case when Arshad Noor Khan stood disqualified to conduct the trial as per the plea of the accused.
Mr Qureshi told the court that Nasir Abbas, who took Daniel Pearl in his taxi to Village Restaurant in Karachi, was an independent prosecution witness and did not require any corroboration.
He said that the person, who wrote the First Information Report (FIR), did not appear as prosecution witness on health grounds and that the FIR was not a substantive piece of evidence.
About controversial date of arrest of Omar Sheikh, he insisted that 24 hours were to expire on Feb 14 after his arrest on Feb 13 and this reason was assigned in the remand report.
Mr Qureshi also indicated that the statements of defence witnesses (DWs), Ahmed Saeed Sheikh and Raoof Sheikh, father and maternal uncle of Omar Sheikh respectively, contradicted with what was contained in the PTV news cassette, produced by them in the court.
He said that the two DWs claimed that the accused had surrendered to police on Feb 5 while the PTV news coverage put it as Feb 13.
Rejecting the defence arguments over ‘irregularities and defects’ in the prosecution case, Mr Qureshi said such things in any manner did not vitiate the trial.
Source: Dawn
Date:7/11/2002
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
