by SHAHID RAO in The Nation, December 16th, 2020
ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court of Pakistan yesterday questioned about the link between the murder and the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, Bureau Chief of Wall Street Journal in Pakistan.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Mushir Alam conducted hearing of the appeals of Sindh government and the parents of Daniel Pearl against the SHC verdict to acquit the alleged murderers of Daniel Pearl.
During the hearing, Justice Yahya Afridi said that there is no link between the murder and the kidnapping. Justice Tariq said that earlier they were satisfied with the recoveries made from the accused, but the laptop examination by the FBI agent, Ronald Joseph, on February 4, 2002, has created doubts. He said that Ronald’s own statement mentioned that he examined the laptop on 04-02-2002.
He said that according to the prosecution case all the recoveries were made on 11-02-2002, then how come the laptop reached Ronald on 4th February, 2002. Sindh Prosecutor General, Farooq H Naek, said that there was confusion about dates. He added that Ronald might have mentioned wrong date in his statement, as he (FBI agent) reached Pakistan on February 4, 2002.
Justice Tariq also questioned about the forensic audit of video, which shows Daniel Pearl was decapitated. Farooq Naek acknowledged that no forensic was conducted of video, but said that the sources supplied the video to the prosecution witness. It was played in the courtroom and everyone there watched it how Daniel was beheaded.
Farooq Naek concluded arguments and from today Faisal Siddiqui would plead his case.
Justice Sardar Tariq Masood in the last hearing noted that the confessions of accused – Fahad Naseem and Salman Saqib – were not voluntarily but were given due to threats or inducement, therefore, the confessional statements are hit by Article 37 & 38 of Qanoon-e-Shadat. The judge observed that even Iram Jahangir, Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the statements of the accused, noted in her own statement that Fahad Naseem gave statement due to threats.
Farooq contended that the statements of the accused corroborate with the articles (scanner, printer, emails) recovered from them and the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
Justice Tariq said that one accused stated that he had given the statement to save his life. He inquired if the confessions are managed then what would be its value in law.
Justice Yahya Afridi asked from the counsel that you mean to say that even if the statements were not voluntarily, but if those are supported by other evidence then it has evidentiary value.
https://nation.com.pk/16-Dec-2020/sc-questions-about-link-between-murder-kidnap-of-daniel-pearl
