Heated debate causes 30-minute break: Pearl case proceeding
HYDERABAD- A heated debate between the prosecution and the defence in the Daniel Pearl case, prompted the Anti-terrorism Court judge, Syed Ali Ashraf Shah, to suspend the proceedings for 30 minutes here on Monday.
The senior defence counsel, Abdul Waheed Katpar, who began the cross-examination of the last prosecution witness, Hameedullah Memon, an investigation officer (IO) in the case, was on his feet when the court rose for the day.
A heated debate followed when the defence tried to prove that the carbon copy, either of a receipt or any document, always tally with each other. And to support this argument, Mr Katpar obtained a piece of handwriting of the IO on a paper duly supported by a carbon.
At this stage the Advocate-General (AG) of Sindh raised his objection. The defence counsel had earlier argued that the carbon copy of cash memo, produced by the IO showing purchase of a camera, scanner and other items from the shop of another prosecution witness, Arif, did not match with the original receipt which was already on court record.
The Chief Prosecutor, Raja Qureshi, who is also Advocate General, Sindh, pointed out that under certain provisions of the Qanoon-i-Shahadat, such a comparison in presence of the trial court judge was not permissible.
Mr Qureshi later said that the judge remarked that neither he would form an opinion nor match the documents or keep the same on the court record.
The AG recorded his objection before the court when proceedings were adjourned after having remained in progress for just two hours. He said that two hours were not full working hours given the fact that proceedings began at 11am and are being adjourned at 1pm.
He said that the jail administration had informed the court that relatives of jail inmates faced hardship in meeting their imprisoned relatives that’s why the proceedings should be adjourned a little early.
Raja Qureshi said that the court would consider this point on Tuesday.
During Monday’s hearing, the defence counsels tried to base the cross-examination on the plea of alibi, citing different newspapers reports which suggest that the date and time of the arrest of the accused were entirely different to what the prosecution stated in its case.
As Mr Katpar left the jail premises without talking to newsmen, another defence counsel, Rai Basheer Ahmed, briefed them about progress of the case.
He said that the IO failed to verify the signature of Mariane Pearl on the First Information Report (FIR) and the one on the faxed letter, submitted before the court through her counsel, Barrister M. Jamil, when defence asked him to do so.
At this point of time Mr Jamil and AG Sindh drew the attention of court towards Mrs Pearl’s power of attorney, available on judicial record, on which she wrote her name as ‘Mariane Pearl’ and signed it with only ‘Pearl’.
Rai Basheer said that Mr Jamil told the court that his client writes her name as Mariane Pearl and signs as ‘Pearl’.
The IO conceded before the court that he did not meet Mariane Pearl after her statement-cum-complaint, submitted to police, was later on converted into a formal FIR under section 154 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) by the Artillery Maidan police.
The court said that this reason could not be made part of evidence and shall be considered at the time of final arguments.
The counsel said that the application, sent to the police station for the registration of FIR, contained the world ‘Pearl’ whereas in the fax message, sent to her counsel for bringing on court record, Mariane Pearl was written which indicated an anomaly.
The counsel said the word ‘April’ had been removed and a figure ‘4’ inserted in its place in the statement-cum-complaint of Mariane Pearl to indicate that the statement was filed on Feb 4 instead of April 2, 2002.
He said that amendment was made with blue ink while the signature on it was in black ink. The counsel maintained that neither Rao Aslam nor Hameedullah Memon certified/verified Mariane Pearl’s signature.
The IO told the court that he went to her residence on a number of occasions and knocked at the door but she didn’t come out, reflecting that she was going through a trauma after her husband’s kidnapping/murder.
Rai Basheer told journalists that the IO also disputed the statement of an FBI Agent, John Moligan, saying that the latter did not meet the accused Fahad Naseem, Salman Saqib and Adil Sheikh at CID Centre on Feb 11 and 12.
The counsel referred to the testimony of John Moligan who was said to have deposed that he had met the accused at CID Centre on the said dates.
Hameedullah Memon maintained that he had also gone through the Feb 13 news reports indicating that Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh surrendered before police in Lahore and was brought to Karachi. He claimed that these news stories emanated from police sources and added that he had also gone through news, mentioning the grant of remand of Fahad Naseem and other accused, the same day.
Rai Basheer said that when newspaper clippings were being referred to IO, the AG objected to it saying that newspapers clippings were inadmissible in absence of correspondent or journalist concerned.
The defence counsel said that news clippings were not considered inadmissible when the AG himself produced photocopies of newspaper clippings for the sake of record.
The chief prosecutor told newsmen that defence could not create any dent in the prosecution witness because overwhelming incriminating evidence had been brought on record that was not shattered by defence counsels.
Source: Dawn
Date:6/18/2002
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
