Memorial for Respondent

In The Honorable High Court of Pakistan

2018

SHERAZ BUTT

VERSUS

STATE OF PAKISTAN

1
 Memorial for Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………4
2. QUESTIONS PRESENTED………………………………………………….5
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………..………………6
4. ADVANCED PLEADINGS ………………………………….……….……..9
A. The Anti-Terrorism Court did have the Authority to hear the case in its original
jurisdiction to try the Sheraz Butt case back in 1999………………….….9
B. Sheraz Butt was rightfully convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court……...11
C. The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (later repealed by the Juvenile Justice System

Act, 2018) did not have a retrospective effect…………………...……….13

D. The sentence of the death penalty did not violate the fundamental human rights of
Sheraz Butt………………………………………………………………. 14
5. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS……………………………………………….16
6. PRAYER………………………………………………………………………17

2
 Memorial for Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

1. Muhammad Iqbal alias Bali v. Province of Punjab, etc writ petition No.24302/2019

Statutes:

Constitution of Pakistan Article 6,199

Other Authorities:

Presidential Notification Letter no.8/41/2001-ptns Dated 13th December,2001

3
 Memorial for Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Under Article 199 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan the High Court of
Pakistan has jurisdiction to hear the case on the application of any aggrieved party. The High
Court has jurisdiction to hear the case that involve the public at large and are related to
enforcement of fundamental rights. The Appellant has the same right to defend the case.

4
 Memorial for Respondent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
On the circumstances of the case, the following questions have been raised:

1. Did the Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try the Sheraz Butt case in 1999?

2. Was Sheraz Butt rightfully convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court?

3. Did the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (later repealed by the Juvenile Justice System Act,

2018) have a retrospective effect?

4. Did the sentence of the death penalty violates the fundamental human rights of Sheraz Butt?

5
 Memorial for Respondent

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

Sheraz Butt and Anwar Khan are two close friends who have been together since their early

childhood. However, their interactions took them to meet individuals with various criminal

tendencies, leading them to learn and adopt similar behaviors for themselves.

Influenced by the wishes to get rich quickly like their other criminal friends, on 21.01.1998 at

8:15 pm near Fareed Park in Bahawalpur Sheraz and Anwar, both aged 15, were involved in an

armed robbery. They stopped an old man at gunpoint and took away his wallet and other

valuables. However, before fleeing from the place of occurrence, the old man attempted to resist

and talk down the two aggressive teenagers. Filled with anger and rage, Sheraz shot at the old

man and they both escaped, who passed away within minutes.

Three eye-witnesses reported the incident to the police and both of them were recognized and

later arrested. An FIR was lodged later that night at 10:15 pm against Sheraz Butt and Anwar

Khan and within three days, both Sheraz and Anwar were arrested.

During the police interrogation, Sheraz claimed to be “Ali Abbas” and confessed to committing

.the crime. His father later submitted an affidavit stating that “Ali Abbas” was not his son’s

name.Due to the unavailability of any NADRA documents, the police relied upon the confession

statement and wrote down the name of the perpetrator as Ali Abbas.

On the other hand, Anwar Khan was released from police. However, upon inquiry, he identified

Sheraz as “Ali Abbas”, claiming he had always known him by that name since childhood.

6
 Memorial for Respondent

In 1999, the case was tried in an Anti-Terrorism Court where the likelihood of a harsher sentence

is considerably higher than in other Courts. Sheraz Butt was sentenced to death under Section

302 of the Pakistan Penal Code which reads,

“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life,

and shall also be liable to fine”.

Along with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which reads,

“Whoever commits an act of terrorism under Section 6, whereby (a) death of any

person is caused, shall be punishable, on conviction, with death or with

imprisonment for life, and with fine…”

During the trial in the Anti-terrorism court, the counsel of Sheraz moved an application to

constitute a medical board to determine his mental health as he repeatedly claims to be Ali Abbas

but the application was subsequently dismissed by the Honorable Court. Sheraz was 17 by the

time his sentence was passed. Later in the year 2000, the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance was

passed prohibiting the execution of juveniles. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice System

Ordinance prohibits the sentencing to death of any person who was under 18 at the time of their

alleged offense.

Following this, Sheraz Butt filed an appeal to get his sentence reduced from the death penalty to

life imprisonment. However, it was argued that the Juvenile System Ordinance was promulgated

after the sentence for the death penalty was passed against Sheraz Butt, therefore the provision

prohibiting the execution of juveniles would not be applicable to this particular case. Lahore

High Court dismissed Sheraz Butt appeal on the ground that any sentence passed before the

7
 Memorial for Respondent

enforcement of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance would not be changed as no law can be

applied retrospectively.

The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance was later repealed by the Juvenile Justice System Act,

2018 which also prohibits the execution of minors.

Sheraz Butt (known as Ali Abbas in police records) was arrested at the age of 15 and has spent

over half of his life on death row. Arrested as a juvenile, his conviction for a fatal shooting and

armed robbery was questionable as confessions and witness statements were extracted using

torture and fabricated evidence. Sheraz Butt was tried in an Anti-Terrorism Court and sentenced

to death.

On 11.02.2019, the black warrant for the execution of Sheraz Butt was issued by the appropriate

court. The very next day, lawyers representing a human rights organization named “Juveniles’

Rights Watch” filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court claiming that Sheraz Butt

cannot be executed on the grounds that his trial is vitiated by illegality and his execution would

violate several provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the

Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.

8
 Memorial for Respondent

ADVENCED PLEADINGS

Q1. The Anti-Terrorism Court did have the Authority to hear the case in its original

jurisdiction to try the Sheraz Butt case back in 1999.

The honourable court had jurisdiction to hear the case as sheraz butt act was suspected as a

act of terrorism by competent authorities under “Whoever commits an act of terrorism under

Section 6, whereby (a) death of any person is caused, shall be punishable, on conviction, with death

or with imprisonment for life, and with fine…”

Q2. Sheraz Butt was rightfully convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court.

Sheraz butt was not rightfully convicted by the honorable court as it breaches Artilce 10A of

Constitution of Pakistan which is stated as “For the determination of his civil rights and obligations or

in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process.”

, As his conviction was decided upon fabricated and forged evidence provided by the competent

authorities (police) back in 1998.

“According to data provided by the Prosecutor General of Punjab, in a study conducted in 2014,

out of a total of 1,195 cases heard by the province’s 14 ATCs, 178 (15 percent) were transferred

to regular courts due to the police incorrectly applying the ATA to the alleged offences. Similarly,

9
 Memorial for Respondent

in 2013, in Karachi 391 of 565 cases (69.2 percent) heard by the city’s 5 ATCs were transferred

to the regular courts for not falling within the ATCs’ ambit.”

During the trial in the Anti-terrorism court, the counsel of Sheraz moved an application to

constitute a medical board to determine his mental health which was subsequently dismissed by

the Honorable Court. In addition, no Ossification test was done by the competent authority (Police)

to prove accused a juvenile by which he could have benefit of doubt.

On the basis of above argument, the executive authorities started to consider the cases of juvenility

of offenders and this issue when came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the apex

Court in the case “ZIAULLAH versus NAJEEBULLAH and others” (PLD 2003 SC 656), settled

the proposition by holding that:

“Essentially question relating to determination of the age of such claimant in terms of section 7 of

the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 can be settled judiciously for the purpose of treating

the accused to be juvenile offender. As far as Executive Authorities or any Committee constituted

by them is concerned, it enjoys no power to discharge the judicial function. If they allowed to do

so, it would be negation of the concept of independence of judiciary. Similarly, it would give rise

to number of related complications on account of which possibility would be that in the garb of

exercise of such powers the judgments of the superior courts are nullified by reducing the sentence

of death to life imprisonment by the Executive Authorities on the argument that the age of the

accused was below 18 years at the time of commission of offence."

In the light of above legal position, it remains a fact that here in this case the juvenility status of

the petitioner was assessed by the learned trial court which was the proper and appropriate forum

and no question has been put about his juvenility.

10
 Memorial for Respondent

According to section 21F of Anti-Terrorism 1997 act :

” Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or prison rules for the time being in force, no

remission in any sentence shall be allowed to a person'* who is convicted and sentenced for any

offence under this Act'* [Provided that in case of a child convicted and sentences for an offence

under this Act, on satisfaction of government, may be granted remission, as deemed

appropriate.]”

Furthermore, Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Sindh Children Act also prohibit the

imposition of the death penalty on children

Q3. The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (later repealed by the Juvenile Justice System

Act, 2018) did not have a retrospective effect.

A. As far as the retrospective effect of the Juvenile Justice Ordinance 2000 is concerned the

section 14 of the act clearly states the following, 1

“Ordinance not to derogate from other laws, The provisions of this Ordinance shall be

in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time in force.”

1
Juvenile Justice Ordinance 2000 section 14

11
 Memorial for Respondent

Another aspect of the matter is that earlier vide letter No.8/41/2001-Ptns dated 13th December,

2001, the President of Pakistan in exercise of his prerogative under Article 45 of the Constitution

of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 granted special remissions in sentences. The operative part

of the text of the said letter is reproduced:

"The death sentence of those condemned prisoners who were juveniles as defined in the Juvenile

Justice System Ordinance, 2000 at the time of commission of offence stands commuted to life

imprisonment provided that the death sentence has been awarded under Ta'zir and not Qisas or

under other Hadood Laws".

The Appellant has come out with a clear stance it will be unfair to deny the benefit of a

legislation (Juvenile Justice System Ordinance or the Presidential Notification dated 13.12.2001)

to the petitioner, when the same benefit has already been extended to other similarly placed

accused persons.

Q4. Did the sentence of the death penalty violate the fundamental human rights of

Sheraz Butt ?

Sentence of death penalty sanctioned to Mr.Sheraz Butt has violated the fundamental

human rights and his constitutional mandate as pakistani citizen. It breaches Article

10A of Constitution of Pakistan which states as “For the determination of his civil rights

12
 Memorial for Respondent

and obligations or in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to a fair trial

and due process.”

In addition to Article 9 of Constitution which is stated as “No person shall be deprived of life

or liberty save in accordance with law.”

The following provisions of constitution are violated if the accused is sentenced to death, as it

will be an ungraceful decision and our country will be defamed internationally. Our great

country, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of

Child (CRC). Article 37 of the CRC asks state parties to ensure the following:

“(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release

shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age; (b) No child

shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or

imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure

of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; (c) Every child deprived of liberty

shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in

a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every

child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best

interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact

with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances,

(d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and

other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprive his or

13
 Memorial for Respondent

her liberty before a court or other com o dependent and impartial authority, and to a prompt

decision on any such action.”

According International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article. 24: “(1) Every child
shall have, without any discrimination as to race, color, sex, language, religion, national or social
origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as
a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.”

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Q1: The Anti-Terrorism Court did have the Authority to hear the case in its original

jurisdiction to try the Sheraz Butt case back in 1999.

Q2. Sheraz Butt was rightfully convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court.

Q3. The Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (later repealed by the Juvenile Justice System

Act, 2018) did not have a retrospective effect.

Q4. The sentence of the death penalty did not violate the fundamental human rights of

Sheraz Butt.

14
 Memorial for Respondent

Prayer

And pass any other order that it deems fit.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: _______________ S/d 1. ……………

Place: _______________ 2. ……………

(Counsel for Respondent)

15