Aurangzeb v. The State,
MLD 2011 23 · Balochistan High Court
Aurangzeb was convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court in Quetta and sentenced to life imprisonment, plus confiscation of his property, over an alleged incident where two women and a man were abducted at gunpoint and held for ransom in a garden, with police later arresting Aurangzeb after a car chase and collision.
On appeal, the Balochistan High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with problems. The firearm supposedly recovered from Aurangzeb was never actually seized at arrest or through any later disclosure. A private witness's presence at the crime scene was unexplained and unsupported by police witnesses, making the recovery evidence doubtful. There were also major contradictions between witness statements that the trial court had ignored. The court noted the garden belonged to Aurangzeb, which reasonably explained his presence there, and found the story of him releasing a hostage who then helped police catch him to be implausible. It also seemed odd that he would try to escape by car rather than on foot, as his co-accused had done. One alleged victim did not identify him, and another key witness was never even produced in court without explanation. Finally, the investigating officer failed to bring in any independent local witnesses.
Because the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court gave Aurangzeb the benefit of that doubt, overturned his conviction and sentence, and acquitted him. The case highlights how weak evidence and sloppy investigation can undermine even serious terrorism-related convictions.
اورنگزیب کو انسدادِ دہشت گردی کی عدالت، کوئٹہ نے مجرم قرار دیتے ہوئے عمر قید کی سزا سنائی تھی، ساتھ ہی اس کی جائیداد ضبط کرنے کا حکم بھی دیا تھا۔ یہ سزا ایک مقدمے میں دی گئی جس کے مطابق دو خواتین اور ایک مرد کو اسلحے کے زور پر اغوا کر کے ایک باغ میں تاوان کے لیے یرغمال بنایا گیا تھا، اور بعد ازاں پولیس نے گاڑیوں کے تعاقب اور ٹکراؤ کے بعد اورنگزیب کو گرفتار کر لیا تھا۔
اپیل کی سماعت کے دوران بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے استغاثہ کے مقدمے میں متعدد خامیاں پائیں۔ جو اسلحہ اورنگزیب سے برآمد ہونے کا دعویٰ کیا گیا تھا، وہ نہ تو گرفتاری کے وقت اور نہ ہی بعد میں کسی انکشاف کے ذریعے حقیقتاً ضبط کیا گیا تھا۔ ایک نجی گواہ کی جائے وقوعہ پر موجودگی غیر واضح تھی اور کسی پولیس گواہ نے اس کی تصدیق نہیں کی، جس کی وجہ سے برآمدگی کا ثبوت مشکوک ہو گیا۔ اس کے علاوہ گواہوں