Prosecution charges rejected by defence: Daniel Pearl case
HYDERABAD- The defence, in Daniel Pearl’s kidnapping and murder trial, on Thursday dismissed the entire prosecution case against his client, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the principal accused.
The senior defence counsel, Abdul Waheed Katpar, started his final arguments before the Anti-terrorism Court (ATC) Judge, Syed Ali Ashraf Shah, when the hearing resumed here after a two-day break. He was on his feet when the court rose for the day.
All the four accused, Omar Sheikh, Fahad Naseem, Adil Sheikh and Salman Saqib were present besides Ahmed Saeed Sheikh, Omar’s father and Aslam Sheikh, Adil Sheikh’s brother.
Mr Katpar declined to brief newsmen on Thursday’s proceedings but his junior colleague, Mohsin Imam and the Chief Prosecutor, Raja Qureshi, gave details of the arguments.
Raja Qureshi remarked that Mr Katpar also pleaded the case of the co-accused.
According to Mohsin Imam, the defence confined its arguments to the prosecution’s claims about Omar Sheikh’s involvement in a conspiracy to kidnap Daniel Pearl, a US journalist. His arguments covered the alleged kidnapping plot, the issue of hand-writing, identification parade of Omar Sheikh, statement of Mariane Pearl, video film of the murder and the confessional statement of main accused before an ATC judge, Arshad Noor Khan.
Mr Katpar said that the trial court should keep in mind that the entire case, as well as the evidences against his client, had to be seen, evaluated and assessed in the light of Article-1 of Qanoon-i-Shahadat Ordinance 1984.
Rejecting the prosecution claim about a conspiracy, in collaboration with three other persons at the Akbar International Hotel, Rawalpindi to kidnap Mr Pearl, the defence counsel pointed out that although a prosecution witness, Asif Mehfooz Farooqui, was claimed to be part and parcel of the alleged conspiracy, but he was not shown as accused while seven accused were still at large. He said that Farooqui had clearly stated that the conspiracy was not hatched in his presence.
The bills, produced by the hotel receptionist, Amir Afzal Qureshi, should have been brought on record by the hotel’s waiter who could otherwise be a natural witness in the case and even Qureshi did not utter anything about the alleged conspiracy, the defence contended.
About the identification parade, in which Omar was identified by Proclaimed Witness (PW), Farooqui, and a taxi driver, Nasir Abbas, the defence said that the parade was held after a delay of three weeks and that it did not meet certain other requirements.
He referred to the recorded statement of Mariane Pearl, that she was told by Nasir Abbas that he had dropped Mr Pearl near Village Restaurant. The counsel said that Nasir Abbas did not inform her that where and with whom her husband had gone after disembarking from the taxi. However, Nasir Abbas had told police that Mr Pearl, after alighting from his taxi, had boarded a white car and shaken hands with someone.
The defence argued that an inference could be drawn from this statement that Nasir Abbas’s statement to the police was an afterthought of the investigating officials.
Mr Katpar also mentioned the deposition of the Judicial Magistrate, South, Erum Jehangir, who, as a prosecution witness, had told the court that the confessional statements of accused, Fahad Naseem and Salman Saqib, were not voluntary. The defence said it also rendered this piece of evidence very weak indicating that the statements were obtained by police using force.
Source: Dawn
Date:7/5/2002
” 
” 
” 
” 
