State bound to protect life, enforce law, carry out fair probe, SC rules

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday described the Baldia Town factory fire as one of the most tragic, painful and heart-rending disasters in Pakistan’s history, in which 260 workers lost their lives and around 60 others suffered burn injuries.

“The victims were ordinary workers who had entered the factory to earn their livelihood, but many of them never came out alive,” Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan observed in the detailed 39-page judgement.

The verdict explained why a three-member SC bench had overturned the convictions of two Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) workers, Abdul Rehman alias Bhola and Zubair alias Chariya, on June 10 in connection with the 2012 fire at the garment factory in Karachi’s Baldia area.

The bench, also comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Shakeel Ahmad, set aside the death sentences awarded by an anti-terrorism court on charges of murder, extortion, arson and terrorism.

Detailed verdict in Baldia factory fire case states prosecution failed to prove charges against MQM workers

The judgement also upheld the acquittal of co-accused Muhammad Abdul Rauf Siddiqui, Umar Hassan, Dr Abdul Sattar Khan and Iqbal Adeeb Khanum.

Justice Shahzad observed that the right to life imposed a corresponding duty on the state to protect human life, enforce safety obligations and conduct a prompt, scientific, impartial and effective investigation so that the real cause of the tragedy could be determined and those actually responsible brought to justice.

The judgement noted that the original FIR had been registered against the factory owners and management for allegedly failing to implement adequate safety measures.

However, around two-and-a-half years later, the prosecution changed its stance, alleging that the petitioners and their co-accused had deliberately set the factory on fire after its owners refused to pay Rs250 million in extortion money allegedly demanded by the MQM.

The petitioners, however, maintained that they had been made scapegoats to victimise their political party. Given these competing narratives, the judgement stressed that the court was required to exercise utmost caution before reaching a conclusion.

The SC reiterated that it was the prosecution’s duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the court’s responsibility to ensure that no innocent person was convicted on the basis of presumptions or unreliable evidence. At the same time, it emphasised that offenders should not escape punishment where credible and convincing evidence existed.

Referring to allegations of extortion, murders and arson attributed to MQM, the court observed that probabilities and presumptions, however strong, could never substitute for conclusive proof required under the criminal justice system.

“We are clear in our minds that if there is no reliable evidence or conclusive proof against the petitioners to establish the alleged motive or other charges, their convictions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of presumptions, probabilities or general allegations,” the judgement said.

The court also made observations regarding the Muhajir community, stating that it formed a cherished and respected part of the Pakistani nation whose members had made immense sacrifices during Partition in 1947.

The judgement noted that MQM had generally been regarded as representing a majority of Muhajirs, but stressed that alleged criminal acts by individuals could not justify attributing guilt to an entire community or its representative political party without tangible and convincing evidence.

Examining the prosecution’s case, the judgement highlighted that the allegation of a Rs250m ransom demand was introduced more than two years after the incident. The prosecution claimed that Zubair alias Chariya, along with five unidentified accomplices, sprinkled chemicals inside the factory and set it ablaze, while Abdul Rehman alias Bhola allegedly conveyed the extortion demand and supervised the attack.

Although the prosecution produced around 400 witnesses, the court noted that only Muhammad Arshad (PW-374) claimed to have witnessed the alleged arson, while factory owner Arshad Bhaila (PW-397) testified about the alleged extortion demand.

The SC found these statements weak, hearsay or otherwise unreliable. It noted that both witnesses had initially been accused in the case before being converted into prosecution witnesses after a delay of two-and-a-half years, giving them a possible motive to implicate the petitioners in order to save themselves.

The judgement further observed that neither witness had independently approached law enforcement authorities regarding the revised prosecution narrative.

The prosecution’s revised case was said to be based on disclosures allegedly made by Rizwan Qureshi, an accused arrested in another case.

However, the judgement pointed out that Qureshi was neither prosecuted in the Baldia factory case nor produced before the trial court as an accused, approver or witness. As a result, the very foundation of the prosecution’s case remained missing. Concluding the judgement, the SC held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It reiterated the settled principle that even a single circumstance creating doubt entitled an accused to acquittal, whereas the present case was “replete with circumstances” that raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s version.

Published in Dawn, July 7th, 2026