Death row prisoner gets judicial reprieve
The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence of Shahid Azeem, a Norwegian-Pakistani citizen, to life imprisonment.
Azeem was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge in Islamabad for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl. His death sentence was later upheld by the Islamabad High Court. Azeem has remained in custody since his arrest in December 2007.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
'Cross-examination can't be denied'
The Supreme Court has ruled that denying the opportunity of cross-examination to a witness constitutes a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. A five-page judgment authored by Justice Salahuddin Panwar, while setting aside the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, noted that the cross-examination was the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for the discovery of truth. The top court said that the reliability of evidence can only be judged through cross-examination, which is essential to reveal the truth and test the credibility of allegations. This is especially important when the possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that a witness may raise untrue and dishonest allegations due to some animosity against the accused, which cannot be accepted unless he undergoes the test of cross-examination, which indeed helps to expose the truth and veracity of allegations. The petitioner, who was serving as a superintendent of police (PSP-BS-18), was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was issued a charge sheet and a statement of allegations for committing acts of omission, thereby constituting inefficiency, misconduct and corruption in terms of Rule 3(a)(b) and (c) of the government servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to an order dated December 23,2015, passed by the Supreme Court, and the Sindh government forwarded the names of other PSP officers, including the petitioner, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. However, during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was summoned, heard in person, and his statement/reply was recorded against the said charge sheet. The statements of 138 witnesses were recorded, but he was not allowed to cross-examine any of them. After completion of the inquiry, the report was submitted on 12.11.2018 to the authorised officer, who forwarded it to the Secretary (Establishment) with the recommendation to impose the major penalty of "Reduction to Lower Stage in Time Scale for Three Years" under Rule-4(b)(ii) of the government servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Federal Service Tribunal (FST) upheld the punishment. The petitioner later approached the Supreme Court. The order notes that the main objective of cross-examination is to rigorously scrutinise the witness's testimony, reveal any inconsistencies, uncover potential biases, and critically assess the reliability of the evidence presented.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
IHC stops FIA from harassing Farhatullah Babar
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday stopped the FIA from harassing former senator Farhatullah Babar and issued notices to the relevant parties, seeking their replies by the last week of this month. IHC Justice Inam Amin Minhas heard the petition filed by Babar through lawyers Iman Mazari and Hadi Ali Chatha under Article 199. The Interior Ministry, the FIA and others have been made parties in the petition. The petition stated that an FIA inquiry was initiated on March 25 on the complaints of "suspected corruption, tax evasion and acquisition of illegal assets" from a citizen, whom the petitioner did not know.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Farhatullah's petition: IHC issues notices to FIA, ministry, others
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) barred the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) from harassing former Senator Farhatullah Babar. A single bench of Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas on Thursday after hearing the initial arguments on Babar's petition issued notices to the FIA, the Ministry of Interior, and other respondents, directing them to submit replies by last week of June. During the hearing, Babar's lawyer argued that his client has been subjected to repeated illegal notices and summons by the FIA. He said the agency initiated an inquiry on March 25, following a citizen's complaint accusing Babar of tax evasion and acquiring illegal assets. The counsel argued that 'Babar does not know the complainant and was not provided a copy of the complaint when he appeared before the FIA on March 28, and on April 11, the FIA sent a detailed questionnaire comprising 12 questions via WhatsApp.' In his petition, the former Senator alleged that the FIA's conduct is 'unlawful, illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide'. Babar – a three-term senator, Hilal-i-Imtiaz recipient, and council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) – highlighted his decades-long advocacy, including efforts to regulate intelligence agencies. The petition sought to quash an anti-corruption inquiry against him, calling it a baseless 'fishing expedition' designed to harass a critic of state institutions. The FIA's Anti-Corruption Circle (ACC) initiated an inquiry based on a private complaint by Rawalpindi resident, Touseef Abbas. Babar asserted that he received no details of allegations, complaint copies, or legal basis for the probe despite repeated requests. He also asserted that the FIA's actions target his human rights advocacy. He cited a 2023 UN report documenting threats against him linked to an alleged 'Kill List'. The petitioner argued that the FIA violated due process of law provided in Articles 4, 10A, 19, 25 of the Constitution by denying access to accusations. Therefore, he requested the court to quash the inquiry and all related notices and sought direction to FIA to disclose allegations, documents, and legal basis for the probe. He also prayed that the FIA may be restrained from arresting or harassing him pending the petition's outcome.—TERENCE J SIGAMONY
