A subordinate court in Lahore few days back acquitted both nominated accused of killing Indian ‘spy’ Sarabjit Singh despite substantial evidence was available on record against them. Their trial continued for more than five years. The both accused also had confessed to their crime before a special inquiry board headed by a deputy inspector general of Police. Two armed jail wardens – Adnan and Safdar – were also present on security of Sarabjit and were injured when they tried to intervene to safe him from the attackers. In law of evidence, injured witnesses in any criminal incident are considered very strong to establish the role of the accused and courts cannot ignore such witnesses. It is worth mentioning that on May 16, 2013, a Lahore High Court judge was appointed as inquiry tribunal to inquire into Singh’s murder by his fellow prisoners at Kot Lakhpat Jail. The tribunal had been appointed on a written request of then-caretaker-chief-minister Najam Sethi. The tribunal held proceedings for several months but the inquiry report was never released. Till last information, the tribunal did not complete it. Counsel of Singh, Awais Sheikh, after few days of Singh’s death had left Pakistan after escaping from unknown kidnapers and few months back died in Sweden. After Sheikh, no one pursued case of Singh in trial and before the judicial tribunal. All these factors put serious question mark on judicial and investigation process in Singh’s case. For a moment let us admit that Singh was a terrorist. Is it enough to treat him above the law, brutally kill him in state custody, and let his killers go scot free? State institutions can establish their credibility at international level by maintaining merit in cases Justice did not take its natural course in all three different cases of Singh including his trial under terrorism charges, trail of his killers, and judicial inquiry into his killing. Firstly, family and counsel of Singh were of the view that he was accused of mistaken identity. He was implicated in FIR registered against one Manjit Singh. Authorities arrested him and implicated him in terrorism case when he crossed border under influence of liquor. Secondly, the trial of his killers was not dealt with on merit. In cases where injured eye-witnesses are available, there is no room for acquittal of accused but in this case both of the nominated accused are simply acquitted. They are given benefit of doubt that the prosecution could not prove its case against them. Thirdly, the judicial inquiry did not give any findings about murder of Singh. All these factors put serious question mark on judicial and investigation process in Singh’s case. For a moment let us admit that Singh was a terrorist. Is it enough to treat him above the law, brutally kill him in state custody, and let his killers go scot free? State institutions can establish their credibility at international level by maintaining merit in cases involving other countries particularly when family of the deceased had raised allegations of killing against the state. Another test case is waiting justice in one of the Lahore’s courts for six years. Rajvinder Kaur, a Canadian-Indian Sikh woman, on August 25, 2012, the day she landed at the Allama Iqbal International Airport Lahore from Canada, was killed. Trial of her killers is still pending. In a sense, pendency of this case is a face saving for justice system. If we go on track record of justice in such cases, they will also be exonerated. Put these cases of India factor aside, there are several precedents when superior courts of the country allowed proscribed organisations to function freely which were banned by Security Council of the United Nations. The writer is a journalist currently based in Canada. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org and @RanaTanver Published in Daily Times, December 19th2018.