ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Supreme Court has held that the death sentence awarded to Sarabjit Singh is "well-deserved" and that there is no scope for any "leniency" given the "nature of offence" committed by him.

In its detailed 27-page judgment upholding the death sentence of Sarabjit Singh for his alleged involvement in five bomb blasts in 1990 at the behest of RAW, the Pakistan apex court rejected the plea of his counsel for quashing the sentence. The defence counsel pleaded dismissal of the High Court verdict on the ground that it was based solely on the "confessional statement" of Sarabjit Singh.

The judgment, a copy of which was made available to The Hindu, said, "The petitioner does not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence and we have found no force in the argument of the learned counsel that conviction on the basis of the sole confessional statement of the petitioner can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for lesser punishment."

The court maintained that the "act of Sarabjit Singh was not only an act of terrorism at the national level, rather it was an act of international terrorism, the object of which was to disrupt and destroy the national life of the people of Pakistan and the petitioner by committing this heinous offence not only caused loss of life and property of innocent persons but also made an attempt to damage the national integrity and stability of Pakistan." It said there was no substance in the contention of the defence counsel that in the absence of direct evidence, it was not safe to convict the petitioner on the basis of his judicial confession which was subsequently retracted.

"We having minutely perused the record with the help of the learned counsel of the petitioner... have found that evaluation of the evidence made by the two courts below was not suffering any factual or legal infirmity of the nature which would suggest material defect in the conclusion regarding the guilt of the petitioner concurrently drawn by the two courts calling for interference of this court and consequently, we would be of the opinion that the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner was well deserved," the judgment said.

The Supreme Court said Sarabjit was convicted by the trial court only on one count in each case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for more than one murder and similarly under Section 307 of the PPC for causing injuries to a number of persons whereas he should have been convicted and sentenced separately for each murder.

The Supreme Court said the lower court judges omitted to take notice of this "illegality but unfortunately, the State has neither filed any appeal in the High Court nor a petition in this Court... we therefore do not consider to go into this question at this final stage."

The judgment said the defence counsel failed to convince the court that the witness who sustained injuries in blasts and identified the petitioner in the Court had any personal motive to make false statements against him or that they were not truthful and reliable witnesses.

"Learned counsel also has not been able to point out any element of bias or malice of the Army or police officer who interrogated the petitioner or the magistrate who recorded his confessional statement."

On August 18, a two-member Bench of the apex court upheld the death sentence awarded to Sarabjit dismissing his appeals on similar judgments of the Lahore High Court and Anti-Terrorism Court. Sarabjit alias Manjeet was convicted of carrying out five bomb blasts that left 14 dead and 89 injured.

Reacting to the verdict, Sarabjit's lawyer, Abdul Hamid Rana, said he had not yet received a copy of the detailed judgment and that he would file a review petition as soon as he got it.

Mr. Hamid said he would file a mercy petition to the Pakistan President if the Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty in its review. The review petition must be filed within 30 days after receiving the detailed judgment and the court also grants a minimum 15 days more to prepare the legal defence for the review petition. "More importantly, I have not yet been granted permission to meet my client. I had applied for permission 13 days ago and there is no word from the authorities on my request. I want to meet my client before I file a review petition," Mr. Hamid said.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail