The detailed judgment issued by a Quetta Anti-Terrorism Court in the FC soldier Shabbir Baloch murder case has shed light on the legal reasoning behind the conviction of BYC leader Dr. Mahrang Baloch and co-accused Sibghatullah.
A copy of the detailed verdict, obtained by Balochistan Pulse, shows that Judge Muhammad Ali Mubeen of Anti-Terrorism Court-I Quetta ruled that the gathering organised by the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC) in Gwadar was not entitled to constitutional protection afforded to peaceful assemblies under Article 16 of the Constitution.
According to the judgment, while Article 16 guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, that right remains subject to legal restrictions and cannot be invoked where violence is directed against state officials performing official duties.
The court observed that Frontier Corps personnel present at the site were carrying out official responsibilities and that labelling them as “occupiers” or “enemies” before targeting them with violence deprived the gathering of its constitutional protection.
The judgment further states that such actions brought the incident within the scope of terrorism as defined under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
Court Cites Common Intention
The court held that both Dr. Mahrang Baloch and Sibghatullah were active participants in the gathering and shared a common intention in the events that led to the killing of FC soldier Shabbir Baloch.
The verdict states that both accused were found guilty of intentional homicide and were therefore convicted under Sections 302-B, 147 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
In addition to life imprisonment, the court imposed a fine of Rs200,000 on each convict, directing that the amount be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased soldier.
According to the judgment, both accused declined to participate in the trial proceedings despite being provided multiple opportunities through video-link facilities.
The court noted that state-appointed defence counsel was also made available to ensure legal representation. However, the accused allegedly chose not to consult with the defence lawyer.
The judgment states that deliberate non-participation by the accused could not be allowed to obstruct or delay criminal proceedings.
FIR Referenced in Verdict
The court also referred to the prosecution’s case as outlined in the FIR lodged by FC Naib Subedar Baitullah Khan.
According to the complaint, FC personnel were conducting routine patrol duties when they encountered a road blockade near Al-Jauhar School in Gwadar, where Dr. Mahrang Baloch was addressing a gathering.
The FIR stated that an inflammatory speech was delivered before participants attacked security personnel with stones and sticks. It further alleged that FC soldier Shabbir Baloch became separated from fellow personnel during the violence and later succumbed to injuries sustained in the attack.
CM Bugti Welcomes Decision
Reacting to the judgment, Balochistan Chief Minister Mir Sarfraz Bugti said the verdict had delivered justice to FC soldier Shabbir Baloch after a prolonged legal process.
In a statement posted on X, the chief minister said the ruling vindicated the provincial government’s position regarding violence carried out under the guise of protest.
The detailed judgment is expected to remain central to ongoing legal and political debate surrounding anti-terrorism prosecutions, public assemblies and security-related cases in Balochistan.
The people of Balochistan also expressed satisfaction on the verdict and showed solidarity with the family of Shabbir Baloch.
