Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Case

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto & others vs The State of Pakistan
(PLD 1979 SC 53)
Facts of the case :
1. Ahmad Raza Kasuri was an admirer of appellant Zulfikar All Bhutto, and
became one of the founder-members of the Pakistan People’s Party was
made the Chairman of the local Branch of the Party in Kasur, and
subsequently awarded the party ticket for election to the National
Assembly of Pakistan in the elections held in December, 1970, and was so
elected. However, thereafter differences began to develop between the
two, and Ahmad Raza Kasuri became a virulent critic of the person and
policies of the appellant, both inside.The climax, or the breaking-point was
reached on the 3rd of June. 1974, when a highly unpleasant altercation
took place between the two on the floor of Parliament during the course of
which Zulfikar All Bhutto told Ahmad Raza Kasuri to keep quiet, adding “I
had enough of you: absolute poison. I will not tolerate your nuisance.”
2. The motive to do away with Ahmad Raza Kasuri is thus firmly established
on the record on the part of appellant Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. During the
lengthy cress-examination of Masood Mahmood and other prosecution
witnesses no tangible motive was shown to exist on the part of either
Masood Mahmood or Saeed Ahmad Khan, or any of the other accused
persons involved in this case to arrange for the assassination of Ahmad
Raza Kasuri through the agency of the Federal Security Force.
3. It was at this juncture that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto entered into a conspiracy with
approver Masood Mahmood, who was then the Director-General of the
Federal Security Force, to get Ahmad Raza Kasuri eliminated through the
agency of the FSF. The exact direction given by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to
Masood Mahmood was to produce the dead body of Ahmad Raza Kasuri, or
his body bandaged all over. In spite of the fact that Masood Mahmood
protested to the then Prime Minister against the carrying out of such a task,
yet all his subsequent actions show that he became a voluntary participant.
4. Mian Mohammad Abbas inducted approver Ghulam Husain as well as
appellants Ghulam Mustafa, Arshad Iqbal and Rana Iftikhar Ahmad
directing them to assist Ghulam Hussain in this task. He also gave
instructions to witnesses Amir Badshah Khan and Fazal Ali for the supply of
arms and ammunition to Ghulam Mustafa and Ghulam Hussain for this
purpose. Ghulam Hussain had been specially selected for the task as he had
been a commando instructor in the Army for 14 years.
5. That it was in pursuance of this conspiracy that an abortive attack was
made on Ahmad Raza Kasuri’s car in Islamabad on the 24th of August.
1974. Ahmad Raza Kasuri promptly registered a case in this behalf at
Islamabad Police Station.
6. The whole plan was again masterminded by Mian Muhammad Abbas
through approver Ghulam Hussain and the other appellants already named.
As a result the attack was eventually launched upon Ahmad Raza Kasuri’s
car when he was returning home after attending a marriage in Shadman
Colony. Thirty rounds were fired from automatic weapons at a carefully
selected road-junction. as a consequence whereof Ahmad Raza Kasuri’s
father Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Khan deceased was hit and later died at
the United Christian Hospital at 2.55 a.m. on 11th of -November, 1974.
7. In the First Information Report registered soon after the death of his father,
Ahmad Raza Kasuri clearly stated that the attack was launched on him as a
result of political differences, and that he had previously also been similarly
attacked, and he recalled that an unpleasant incident had taken place
between him and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the Parliament in June, 1974.
8. Ahmad Raza Kasuri kept on clamoring for justice, and demanding the
resignation of the then Prime Minister on the ground that he would not get
justice as long as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was in power. In spite of the identity of
ammunition used in both the incidents at Islamabad and Lahore the
investigation was not allowed to travel in the direction of the Federal
Security Force owing to the intervention of the Prime Minister’s Chief
Security Officer Saeed Ahmad Khan, and his Assistant the late Abdul Hamid
Bajwa.
9. There is also voluminous oral and documentary evidence to show that after
the murder Ahmad Raze Kasuri was kept under special surveillance.
10.In the final phase, efforts were initiated by the appellant to bring Ahmad
Raza Kasuri back to the fold of the Pakistan People’s Party, and this task
was entrusted to his Chief Security Officer. Ahmad Raza Kasuri did return to
the People’s Party and were shown petty favors, including his deputation
on a Parliamentary delegation to Mexico, from where he sent a report
eulogizing the leadership of the appellant. In evidence he has asserted that
he had to adopt finis stance as a matter of self preservation.
Appellants Arguments :
1. It is a false, fabricated and politically motivated case, being the result of an

international conspiracy aimed at eliminating the appellant both politically
and physically.
2. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that
inadmissible evidence had been allowed to be brought on the record and
taken into consideration against the appellant in violation of the relevant
provisions of law.
3. During his elaborate address, spreading over nearly 12 hours, appellant
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto denied the prosecution allegations regarding his having
any motive to have witness Ahmad Raza Kasuri assassinated, and having
entered into any conspiracy in this behalf with witness Masood Mahmood,
the then Director-General of the Federal Security Force. He also contended
that the evidence did not disclose the presence of an essential ingredient
of the offence of conspiracy and agreement on the part of the co-
conspirators.
4. All the confessions recorded in the case have been recorded in violation of
the provisions of subsection (1-A) of section 164, Criminal Procedure Code
as they were not recorded in the presence of the appellant and the he was
not given an opportunity of cross-examine them.
Prosecution Arguments and witnesses :

1. P. W. 2Masood Mahmood stated that the Prime Minister had told him that
Mian Muhammad Abbaa had already been given directions to get rid of Mr.
Ahmad Raza Kasuri.
2. In his cross-examination, P. W. 2 Masood Mahmood stated that he had
knowledge of the fact that arms and ammunition had been given to Jam
Sadiq Ali and late Mr. Abdul Hamid Bajwa for operation against the Hurrs,
in Sind.
3. P. W. 15 Muhammad Waris another Investigating Officer in the case stated
that Saeed Ahmad Khan Chief Security Officer to Prime minister told him
that the name of the Prime Minister had appeared in the F. I. R. and that he
should proceed with wisdom and caution. They further told us that Ahmad
Raza Kasuri had named the Prime Minister in the F. I. R. dishonestly.
4. The caliber of 24 empties recovered from the scene of the crime again
shows that they were of 7.62 mm bore of the type which was in use with
units of the Federal Security Force.
Judgement :
After a seven-month-long hearing the Supreme Court on Tuesday February 6,

1979 by a majority opinion dismissed the appeals of Z. A. Bhutto and four others
who had been sentenced to death by a full Bench of the Lahore High Court and
upheld the judgment of the trial Bench. The judgment was announced in a packed
court room by the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Anwarul Haq.
The three charges, with which Mr. Bhutto was charged in the High Court have
already been noted. He was charged for an offence under section 120-B, P. P. C;
section 302 read with sections 109 and 301 PPC and section 307 read with section
109 P. P. C. However, he was convicted, and here I would refer to only that part of
his conviction to which objection has been taken, under section 302 read with
section 301 and section 109 and section 111 PPC and sentenced to death for the
murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmad Khan. Now right from the earliest stage of
the case, when the F.I. R. of occurrence was lodged at the Police Station by Mr.
Kasuri in 1974 it was known to the prosecution that Mr. Bhutto had master-
minded the plan to assassinate him, but in the execution of it his father got killed.
The evidence given by P. Ws. Masood Mahmood, Saeed Ahmad Khan and M. R.
Welch in the High Court was to the same effect, as also that in view of the
conspiracy entered into between Mr. Masood Mabmood and Mr. Bhutto, he
availed of the services of Mian Abbas who in turn detailed approver Ghulam
Hussain and the other appellants for assassinating. Mr. Kasuri and in that behalf
provided them with arms and ammunition. Notwithstanding this position,
however,no charge was framed against Mr. Bhutto under section 111 PPC and the
case proceeded under section 109 PPC. In the judgment delivered by the High
Court, however, it was noted that Mr. Bhutto was convicted, amongst others,
under section 302/301/109/111 PPC. In this respect the consideration of section
109 and section 111PPC. would seem to be relevant, which respectively read as
under ; “109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in
consequence and where no express provision is made for Its punishment,
Whoever abets any offence shall if the act abetted is committed in consequence
of the abetment and no express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such abetment be punished with the punishment provided for the
offence.
Appeal petion of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the supreme was rejected and he was
sentenced to death along with Mian Muhammad Abbass and Ghulam Mustafa.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto & others vs The State of Pakistan

(PLD 1979 SC 53)

Facts of the case :

1. It is a false, fabricated and politically motivated case, being the result of an

Prosecution Arguments and witnesses :

After a seven-month-long hearing the Supreme Court on Tuesday February 6,

You might also like