ISLAMABAD: In the review petition before the Pakistan Supreme Court, Sarabjit Singh's lawyer has argued that Sarabjit's alleged confession about involvement in a series of bomb blasts in 1990 has no evidentiary value in the eyes of the law and hence there was no justification for the death sentence awarded to him.

In his five-page petition listing the grounds for the review, Abdul Hameed Rana said no prudent person would make such a confession unless under suppression or undue pressure.

In its verdict of August 18, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence awarded to Sarabjit by the lower courts on the ground that he did not deserve any leniency for plotting against Pakistan and the court had no reason to disbelieve the depositions made by witnesses.

Mr. Rana sought permission from the authorities for a personal meeting with Sarabjit before he filed the review petition, but to no avail. Besides, he has also sought help of the Indian authorities in obtaining the tapes and transcripts of an interview of an eyewitness who had deposed against Sarabjit telecast by Indian channels. In it, the eyewitness said he was pressured to depose against Sarabjit.

"That the petitioner has been awarded the severe/harsh sentence and punishment of imprisonment, fine and death due to prejudice on the basis of a difference of religion... ," the review petition said.

It said that Major Ghulam Abbas, a prosecution witness in one of the petitions against Sarabjit, appeared as a defence witness, which was neither considered by the trial court nor the apex court. The petition said if Maj. Abbas' statement had been considered, Sarabjit's fate would have been different.

It said the harsh sentence was against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.

"That it is the settled principle of law that the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused, even at bail stage, but contrary to it the petitioner is going to be sentenced on the basis of religious considerations. That it is in the interest of justice to review the judgment passed by this august court, on the basis of legal, factual, circumstantial circumstances as well as on humanitarian grounds," it argued.

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