SUO MOTU CASE NO.10 OF 2011 versus BRUTAL KILLING OF A YOUNGMAN BY RANGERS
Sections 7 and 5 (2) (i) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Arts, 184 (3) and 9 by the Supreme Court itself, notice which followed the murder of a person by Sindh Rangers, mostly video video Clips shown. Prominent television channels were also seen in the Supreme Court, which proved that approximately 5/6 people in uniform were initially caught by the man with his hair and his Later one of them opened fire, causing him to say that a man fell down without receiving any injuries, crying for his life, begging him to be taken to the hospital. None of the police and Rangers personnel on the spot assisted the deceased (then injured) as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries. The etiquette of his presence, in which the deceased was killed, clearly indicated the barbarism because once he became powerless, as the video clips show, he was fired in any case. Could not be done and to the best of his ability he could be a Ranger. Have been handed over to the police, if he was accused of being involved in the commission of a crime calling him, but the Rangers have section 5 (2) (i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Had no option to fire at. The Constitution was responsible for protecting and protecting the lives of all citizens, but in the present case the facts were the other way around - the disregard of Article 9 of the Constitution, a classic case of the height of law enforcement agencies in which senior citizens of both agencies. Officers were involved. A sense of responsibility
