The bench, which includes Justice Asif Saeed Khosa and Justice Maqbool Baqar, discussed the maintainability of the appeal. Justice Nisar asked if the SC has the right to question a verdict given by a high court, to which he was assured by prosecution lawyer Faisal Siddiqui that the court indeed does have jurisdiction in the matter.
During the hearing, Justice Asif Saeed Khosa observed that there are two issues the court needs to explore; what constitutes terrorism and whether the applicability of terrorism charges in this case has already been settled by the high court. Justice Khosa, too, asked if the SC has jurisdiction over a matter that has already been decided by the high court.
"How can we review a matter that has already been settled by the SHC?" Justice Khosa asked, observing that the high court had already deemed Shahzeb's murder 'not an act of terrorism.' In November last, the SHC had set aside punishment awarded to the accused by an anti-terrorism court while ordering a retrial of the case in a sessions' court.
The order was passed after considering a review petition filed by one of the defendants' lawyer. The lawyer had argued that terrorism charges should be dropped from the case as the prime suspect was a juvenile at the time of the crime.
Following the SHC decision, civil rights campaigners had filed an application in the SC stating that the unfortunate and gruesome murder of the university student had spread terror and created fear, panic, helplessness and insecurity among people residing in the DHA and Clifton vicinities, as well as the public in general of Karachi and Pakistan.
The applicants had said: "Hundreds of people had come out on the streets demanding justice for the deceased on the grounds that the same could happen to their children also. This is because such unfortunate incidents are prevalent in our society."
They had recalled that the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) had also dismissed the plea of accused seeking transfer of the case to the sessions court in March 2013. The SHC had also earlier upheld the ATC order on the transfer plea and ruled: "We, therefore, hold that act of accused Shah Rukh Jatoi created sense of helplessness and insecurity amongst the people of the vicinity and did destabilize the public at large."
The applicants said that as such, provisions of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is fully justified in being applied to this case. Therefore, the present case should fall within the jurisdiction of an anti-terrorism court.
On the night of December 24, 2012, 20-year-old Shahzeb Khan, the son of Deputy Superintendent of Police Aurangzeb Khan, had been gunned down in Karachi's Defense Housing Authority. He was returning home with his sister from a wedding ceremony. Shahzeb was killed for picking a fight with one of the suspect's servants, who had verbally threatened and harassed his sister.
Then Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had taken suo motu notice of the incident after it sparked widespread outrage across the country. As the prime accused belonged to powerful feudal families of Sindh, the incident had triggered a nationwide debate over whether or not the country's elite could be held accountable for crimes it committed.
Later after a speedy trial, Judge Ghulam Mustafa Memon of Anti-Terrorism Court-3 sentenced Shahrukh Jatoi and co-accused Nawab Siraj Talpur to death. Sajjad Talpur and Ghulam Murtaza Lashari, the Talpurs' servant, were handed life imprisonment for their involvement in the murder. A couple of months after the sentence, however, Shahzeb's parents had issued a formal pardon to the convicts.