KARACHI: An antiterrorism courtroom on Wednesday allowed an utility pleading to cost with abetment eight former officers of the Anti-Automobile Lifting Cell in a case pertaining to the homicide of an adolescent in an alleged “staged” encounter final 12 months.
Eight ACLC officers, together with then SHO Tariq Mehmood, then inspectors Azhar Ahsan and Tariq Raheem, then head constable Shahid after which constables Ghulam Abbas, Fawad Khan, Mohammad Daniyal and Bilal Rasheed, have been charged with killing 19-year-old pupil Intizar Ahmed on the night time of Jan 13 in Defence Housing Authority.
On Wednesday, the ATC-XIII decide, who’s conducting the trial within the judicial complicated contained in the central jail, allowed an utility collectively moved by assistant prosecutor common Ghulam Murtaza Metlo and the complainant’s counsel Salahuddin Panhwar.
Eight police officers charged in case
Within the utility filed below Part 277 of the Felony Process Code learn with Part 32 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, they contended that the cost of premeditated homicide, frequent intention and terrorism had already been framed towards all of the accused on Could 14.
They additional contended that former police constables Bilal Rasheed and Daniyal had opened hearth on the sufferer, however the co-accused had neither stopped them from killing the youth, nor arrested them on the spot or made any restoration from the place of the incident.
These acts quantity to abetment, they argued and pleaded to change the beforehand framed fees towards the accused by additionally indicting all of them with the cost of abetment below Sections 109 (punishment of abetment if the act abetted dedicated in consequence and the place no specific provision is made for its punishment), 111 (legal responsibility of abettor when one act abetted and completely different act accomplished) and 113 (legal responsibility of abettor for an impact attributable to the act abetted completely different from that supposed by the abettor) of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Quite the opposite, the defence counsel for the undertrial policemen opposed the plea arguing that the cost had already been framed towards their purchasers in Could final 12 months, subsequently, the applying to change the identical had been filed with an intention to make the matter linger on. They pleaded to dismiss the plea.
After listening to arguments from each side and inspecting the fabric out there on report, the decide wrote in his order that it appeared that the presence of all of the accused on the place of incident was not denied.
He additional stated that the report confirmed that the accused had been in non-public automobile and in civil gown, whereas in line with them they had been performing official duties. Furthermore, the decide stated it had additionally come on report that after the alleged incident they slipped away from the place of the incident with out informing their superior officer about it.
The decide noticed that when the matter was flashed within the media, then they ready sure paperwork and in line with the defence counsel at preliminary stage Inspector Tariq Mehmood despatched the assertion below Part 154 of the CrPC to the police station involved for incorporating the identical within the Part 154 e book, however the obligation officer deliberately made an entry within the roznamcha (every day diary).
The decide famous that the report confirmed that each one accused denied that the co-accused police constables Bilal Rasheed and Daniyal had been members of the police social gathering. Whether it is presumed to be appropriate, then why they (did) not forbid them from firing on the harmless boy, neither had they apprehended them on the spot nor was any restoration affected from them on the spot although senior police officers had been in commanding place, the decide famous.
“The execution of complete episode in method as mentioned above suggests energetic participation of the accused within the alleged offence,” the decide noticed and concluded that “they facilitated the co-accused within the fee of the offence”.
The decide dominated that below Part 277 of the CrPC the change may very well be altered or added at any time earlier than the judgment was pronounced.
The courtroom overruled the objection raised by the defence counsel for the accused concerning delays in submitting of the current utility by the complainant’s counsel and the state prosecutor to change the cost, observing that such competition was no floor for refusal of the applying, if the case for the alteration was made out.
The decide allowed the applying with instructions to change the cost already framed with Part 109 and 113 of the PPC.
Revealed in Daybreak, February seventh, 2019