Shahrukh Jatoi Case

CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. 400, 401, AND 402 OF 2019 (Against the judgment dated 13.05.2019 passed by
the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Special Cr. ATA Nos. 19/2013, 24/2013, 25/2013, Criminal Revision No.
40/2014 and Conf. Case No. 01/2013)
Tariq Mehmood Shaikh
Sequence of Presentation
1. Case background

2. Judicial history of the Case

3. Issues in Question

4. The Judgment

5. Judicial Reasoning

6. Conclusion
Case Background – Case facts
1. FIR No. 591 in Police Station Darakhshan on 1:25 AM, 25 th December 2012 for the
Murder of Shahzaib

2. PPC: 302 (qatl e amad), read with section 34 (common intention)

3. Report under Sections 173 CrPC was submitted for the offenses under Sections
302/354/109/34 PPC read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (terrorism
charges added during the investigation)

4. Appellant Shahrukh Jatoi was also tried under Section 13(e) of the Pakistan Arms
Ordinance, 1965 for possessing a pistol and four cartridges without a license
Judicial History
1. Case tried by ATC No. III

2. 07.06.2013 Judgment:

3. Shahrukh Jatoi and Nawab Siraj Ali Talpur were convicted and sentenced under
7ATA, 302, 109, 34
Judicial History (continued)
Judgment challenged before High Court by respondents through Special Criminal ATA No. 19 of
2013, Special Criminal ATA No. 24 of 2013, Special Criminal ATA No. 25 of 2013

Complainants sought enhancement of punishments through Criminal Revision Application No. 40 of

2014

Sindh High Court gave a Court Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2013 – Confirmation of death sentences
against two respondents

28.11.2017 – Common Judgment about the above by the Sindh High Court
The case was remanded for ordinary jurisdiction for a de novo trial – the case is not of terrorism.

The court confined itself to the issue of jurisdiction of an anti-terrorism court in the said case and did not discuss or
decide on the case facts.
Judicial History (continued)
1. Civil society – Seeking leave for appeal, granted by SC on 13.01.2018

2. 01.02.2018 – The Supreme Court’s Judgment subsequent suo motu, on petitions

after the right to appeal, was granted,
1. Set aside the Sindh High Court decision of 28.11.2017

2. All the appeals before the SHC were deemed to be pending

3. To be decided by another bench within 2 months

4. Accused to be retaken into custody

Judicial History (continued)
1. 13.05.2019 SHC judgment by another bench

2. Set aside the conviction of appellants under section 302/109/354/34 PPC on the
basis of a compromise that had been affected between the parties and found to be
genuine by both the trial court and the SHC

3. ATA provisions were maintained as they were not compoundable

4. However, the death sentences for Shahrukh and Nawab Siraj Ali Talpur were
reduced to life imprisonment
Judicial History – Current Case
• SC Judgement 18.10.22

• CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. 400, 401 AND 402 OF 2019 (Against the judgment dated
13.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Special Cr. ATA Nos. 19/2013,
24/2013, 25/2013, Criminal Revision No. 40/2014 and Conf. Case No. 01/2013)
Question of Law
1. Whether the ingredients of terrorism are established from the facts and
circumstances that surfaced during the proceedings before the trial court

2. Whether the provision of Section 6 punishable under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism

Act is applicable in the given circumstances, and

3. Whether the punishment inflicted by the High Court while reducing the death
sentence to life imprisonment was justified or not
The Judgement
1. Provisions of PPC removed

2. Provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act not applied

3. Conviction under section 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance overturned

4. The appellants acquitted of the charge and released from Jail

Judicial Reasoning
1. Provisions of ATA not applicable because the incident was of a personal nature – as per Ghulam
Hussain case precedent

2. Provisions of PPC removed because compoundable – agreement had been reached between the parties

3. Conviction under section 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance overturned on the issues of empties.

• “Admittedly the crime empties were first sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 31.12.2012 but
subsequently, they were taken back on 17.01.2013 and were re-submitted later on along with the alleged
recovered pistol from the appellant on 23.01.2013.

• This Court in a number of cases has held that if the crime empty is sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory after the arrest of the accused or together with the crime weapon, the positive report of the
said Laboratory loses its evidentiary value.”
Thank you