ISLAMABAD – The
Supreme Court of Pakistan, on Monday, will start hearing on appeals against the
Sindh High Court judgment to acquit the accused involved in murder of Daniel
Pearl, Bureau Chief of Wall Street Journal in Pakistan.

On April 2, the SHC
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 07 years RI with a fine of Rs.2 million.

Daniel Pearl was
killed in Karachi in January, 2002. His wife Mariane Pearl on 04.02.2002 had
filed an FIR at Artillery Maidan Police Station Karachi. Trial Court on
15-07-2002 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 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 acquitted the accused. It also
held that the subject case did not fall within the purview of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Omer Sheikh was 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, 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.

Daniel’s parents
maintained in their petition that the SHC in the impugned judgment had 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 had 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 submitted that
these facts were admitted that firstly, the deceased was abducted. Secondly,
the deceased was abducted/kidnapped for ransom as ransom emails were received
and recovered. However, what was denied by the respondents No.2 to 4 and Ahmed
Omer Shaikh was their role in sending the ransom emails but not the fact that
the ransom emails were actually received. Thirdly, the deceased was brutally
murdered by way of beheading.

They further
submitted that a bare reading of the impugned judgment made it evident that the
Impugned Judgment created an artificial distinction between the offences of
kidnapping for ransom and abduction in the facts of this case.

Newspaper: Nation