In an unforeseen turn of events, Shahrukh Jatoi, a death-row inmate that made headlines back in 2013 in the highly sensationalized Shahzeb Khan case, was acquitted by the Supreme Court. The others accused were also acquitted. Back in 2013, the Supreme Court authorised a trial under Section 6b of the Anti-Terrorism, where terrorism is used to “intimidate or overawe the Government or the public…or create a sense of fear and insecurity in society.” While murder does not typically fall under the purview of the Anti-Terrorism law, it was the Supreme Court’s understanding that the incident was unique because the crime was committed to intimidate the public into submission. By shooting Shahzeb in public, Shahrukh insinuated that his wealth and status would shield him from the repercussions of his actions. But the public disagreed, raising questions about selective accountability and whether the criminal justice system empowers the wealthy to commit a crime. Shahrukh was handed the death penalty. This case reveals an age-enduring interplay between the media and the criminal justice system. A mere three per cent of all murder cases end in criminal punishment. Just as distressing is the blood-money provision, which enables many murderers to evade legal penalties, whereas other cases are simply not given any attention. Shahzeb’s murder was broadcasted on national television for months, and this is precisely why it was taken notice of. Indeed, if it wasn’t for the media coverage surrounding the case, history shows that criminalization is highly unlikely. However, in an ideal world, the ball should never be in the media’s court, to begin with, and the higher judiciary should not be forced to kickstart something that clearly falls under the gambit of law enforcement. There remains a long list of questions about why a case deemed so unique was seen taking repeated u-turns. Mr Jatoi’s sentencing in 2012 had come as a sign that justice would prevail but ten years later, his acquittal has reaffirmed the common belief that no predicament is sticky for someone with influential connections. Earlier this year, his transfer to the Qamarul Islam Hospital, where he could be seen enjoying an exclusive floor, had caused an uproar over how deep the class differences entrenched into the criminal system. Whatever transpired in the court on Tuesday can only make sense if seen as an extension of the same exploitation. To our misfortune, our judicial system has yet to find answers for the sake of Mr Khan murdered in the middle of the street. May it be the loopholes in the judgement, deliberate attempts by responsible officers to show preferential behaviour or the willingness of the political players to rubber-stamp their above-the-law status, justice has, not, been served. As for Mr Jatoi, he may well flash all the victory signs he wants because, in a country riddled with legal compromises and administrative weaknesses, he has, definitely, hit the jackpot. *