{"id":8951,"date":"2020-05-03T08:43:07","date_gmt":"2020-05-03T03:43:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pakistanpressfoundation.org\/?p=98840"},"modified":"2020-05-03T08:43:07","modified_gmt":"2020-05-03T03:43:07","slug":"pearls-parents-also-challenge-in-sc-high-court-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pakistanfoemonitor.org\/pearls-parents-also-challenge-in-sc-high-court-verdict\/","title":{"rendered":"Pearl\u2019s parents also challenge in SC high court verdict"},"content":{"rendered":" $\"Pearl\u2019s$ \n

ISLAMABAD: The\nparents of The Wall Street Journal\u2019s slain reporter Daniel Pearl has joined the\nSindh government in challenging the Sindh High Court\u2019s (SHC) April 2 judgement\nof overturning the conviction of Ahmed Omer Saeed Sheikh before the Supreme\nCourt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senior counsel Faisal Siddiqui on Saturday moved an appeal\nbefore the apex court on behalf of the reporter\u2019s mother Ruth Pearl and father\nJudea Pearl.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier the Sindh government through Prosecutor General Dr\nFiaz Shah had appealed before the Supreme Court with a request to set aside the\nSHC\u2019s April 2 order of modifying the sentence of Sheikh to seven years rigorous\nimprisonment with a fine of Rs2 million. Sheikh is believed to be the\nmastermind behind the alleged kidnapping and killing of Daniel Pearl.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Sindh government had expressed apprehensions that there\nwas strong evidence that Sheikh along with co-accused might abscond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ARTICLE CONTINUES\nAFTER AD<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Soon after filing of the petition, counsel Siddiqui in a\nstatement said that the SHC decision to free the men involved in the murder was\na complete miscarriage of justice. \u201cIt is a defining case for the Pakistani\nState and its judicial system, involving freedom of the press, the sanctity of\nevery life, freedom from terror and the manifestation of a welcoming and safe\nPakistan to the world. Rarely has any court case embodied and risked such\nfundamental values,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The SHC on April 2 had modified the sentence of Sheikh and\nacquitted three co-conspirators namely Fahad Naseem, Sheikh Adil and Salman\nSaqib, who were earlier sentenced to life imprisonment by the Anti-Terrorism\nCourt (ATC), Karachi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In February 2002, 38-year-old Daniel Pearl \u2014 South Asia\nbureau chief for The Wall Street Journal \u2014 was murdered in Karachi after he was\nkidnapped in January while doing a research on religious extre\u00admism in the\ncity. Later a graphic video showing his decapitation was delivered to US\nConsulate. Subsequently, Sheikh was arrested in 2002 and sentenced to death by\nthe trial court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Saturday Ruth and Judea Pearl pleaded through their joint\npetition that the high court erred in discarding evidence of the forensic\nexpert of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) solely on the ground that\nthe forensic expert had stated in his evidence that he was given the laptop,\nbelonging to the Fahad Naseem on Feb 4, 2002, whereas the witnesses had stated\nin their evidence that the said laptop was recovered on Feb 11, 2002.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is submitted that in the present case, the evidence of\nthe forensic expert and his forensic expert report clearly prove that the said\nlaptop was used for the sending of ransom emails, the petition pleaded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, the evidence of the forensic expert is clearly\ncorroborated by the evidence of the independent witnesses, such as PW\n(Prosecution Witness) Sheikh Naeem and PW Mehmood Iqbal, which proved that the\ninternet connection given to Fahad Naseem was used for sending the ransom\nemails.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The high court even erroneously discarded the evidence of PW\nZaheer Ahmed by declaring him a chance witness, even though his independent\nevidence supports the fact that the laptop was recovered. Therefore, in view of\nthe strong independent corroboration, the evidence of the forensic expert and\nhis forensic expert report could not have been discarded solely on the basis of\nminor contradictions in the dates of his examination of the laptop and the same\nwas liable to be considered as incriminating evidence against Sheikh, the\npetition pleaded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is a settled principle of law that any evidence recovered\npursuant to a wrongful arrest at an earlier date would still be admissible when\nit is incriminating, relevant and supported by independent evidence, the\npetition argued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is also well settled law that even though such wrongful\narrest on an earlier date will be covered under the exceptions to the doctrine\nof the fruits of the poisonous tree. But even this limited doctrine is not\naccepted by the courts of the subcontinent who have taken a much broader view\nof evidential principles which is that the evidence even if illegally recovered\nwould be admissible if it is incriminating and relevant and corroborated by\nother evidence, the petition said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Incriminating evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The high court also erred by holding that no evidence was\nbrought on record by the prosecution to link any of the accused persons to the\nmurder of Daniel Pearl, the petition argued, adding a bare perusal of the\nentire record would reveal that there was plethora of incriminating evidence,\nboth forensic as well as oral, which proved that murder was committed and that\nall the accused persons aided and abetted the murder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, it is obvious and apparent that the high court\njudgement was erroneous since it was fundamentally based on misreading of the\nentire record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The high court also held wrongly that the convictions and\nsentences awarded by the trial court to Sheikh and his co-accused could not be\nsustained on the basis of the standard of proof, meaning that the prosecution\nhas not been able to prove the case against the accused persons beyond\nreasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petition argued that the high court had misapplied the\nburden and the standard of proof erroneously to the facts of this case despite\nthe fact that there was substantial incriminating evidence, both oral and\nforensic, against the accused persons for the offences they have been tried\nfor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondly, the substantial incriminating evidence, both oral\nand forensic, cannot be discarded on the basis of explainable contradictions,\nmisapplication of the criterion of admissibility and alternative speculative\ntheories. And thirdly, the high court failed to note that this was a brutal\nmurder as a result of international terrorism and the principle of the standard\nof proof as well as the benefit of doubt in cases of international terrorism\nhave to be applied keeping in context that the nature and type of evidence\navailable in such terrorism cases cannot be equated with cases involving\nnon-terrorism crimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Newspaper: Dawn<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n