Lahore:
An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore unveiled its verdict on Monday in two separate cases of May 9, condemning certain key leaders of PTI, notably Umar Sarfraz Cheema, Dr. Yasmin Rashid, Ejaz Chaudhry and Mian Mehmood Rasheed.
The ATC, which held its procedure in a courtroom inside Kot Lakhpat prison in Lahore, however acquitted the vice-president of the PTI, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, in the two cases recorded following the riot incidents which broke out following the arrest of the founder of the PTI Imran Khan on May 9. 2023.
Lahore ATC-I Manzer judge Ali Gill unveiled his reserved verdict one week back in two cases related to the combustion of police vehicles in Rahat Bakery respectively near the house of Lahore Corps commander and the attack on the Shadman police station on May 9, 2023.
In the Rahat Bakery case, the judge acquitted seven of the 17 accused, including Shah Mahmood Qureshi, but condemned the others, including Cheema, Dr. Yasmin, Ejaz Chaudhry, Rashid to ten years in prison.
Those who were acquitted also included Muhammad Awais, Faizan, Taya Sultan, Shahid Baig, Sohail Khan, Rafiuddin, Fareed Khan, Sulaiman Ahmad, Abdul Qadir and Majid Ali.
In the case of attack by the Shadman police station, the ATC paid 12 of the 25 accused, including Shah Mahmood Qureshi.
However, he condemned Cheema, Dr. Yasmin Rashid, Ejaz Chuadhry, Rashid and sentenced them to 10 years in prison. The court also sentenced Aliya Hamza and Sanam Jave of PTI and sentenced them to 5 years in prison.
Earlier, during the arguments, the accused’s lawyer, Burhan Moazzam Malik, questioned the implication of the accused in FIR, declaring that forged and frivolous content had been written against innocent.
He also drew the attention of the Court to article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which stipulates that “no one will be punished twice for the same offense”.
He said the accusation had assigned the May 9 plot to the PTI leadership. He said the conspiracy is a single act – for convictions on several occasions to the management of the PTI.
He argued that the witnesses Asi Hassam Afzal and the gendarme Khalid admitted during the counter-examination that they had made declarations in five different ATCs to date, and their declaration recorded in this case was their sixth. They also admitted that all of these statements concerned the same alleged conspiracy which would have been hatched in Zaman Park, Lahore.
Witnesses to the accusation also admitted that, to date, five of these courts had already announced their judgments in the relevant affairs in which they had filed earlier.
On the basis of their declarations in these cases, the ATCS recorded convictions against certain accused, thus already granted a sentence to the same accusation for the same offense, on the basis of the same elements of evidence provided by these witnesses.
It was also argued that the accused, Dr. Yasmin Rashid and Shah Mahmood Qureshi, have already been tried by the ATC in FIR 97/2023, registered in the Sarwar Road police station, in which Yasmin was sentenced to having developed this conspiracy in Zaman Park, while Qureshi was acquitted.
Consequently, any other prosecution, trial or procedure against the two accused is unconstitutional, illegal and illegal under articles 4 and 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, read with article 403 of the CRPC and article 26 of the General Law on Clauses.
He argued that the accusation or any procedure against the same accused, on the same allegation, for the same offense, on the basis of the same evidence, is prohibited and not justified by law.
With regard to the non-inspection of the conspiracy site presumed by investigative agents (iOS), the non-identification of witnesses to the accusation and the absence of a site plan, Malik argued that the two witnesses of the alleged conspiracy did not report any place of conspiracy.
The iOS also admitted that they had never visited or inspected the place of alleged conspiracy and admitted that no site plan had never been prepared for such a place. This means that no conspiracy of this type has never been hatched and that the accusation has not proven the allegation.
He argued that Qureshi, Dr. Yasmin, Aliya Hamza and others were neither pretended to the scene nor accused of having committed a mischief or caused damage to property.
No specific allegation to cause damage to property or to commit a mischief – whether by a criminal fire or otherwise – has never been classified against one of the other accused throughout the trial.
Malik stressed that none of the accused was mentioned as presenting on the alleged scene of crime in the FIR; No characteristic or descriptions of unknown accused was provided in the FIR and no allegation of instigation by any of the accused, while being physically instead of occurrence, was made.
He argued that no allegation of instigation or provocation via social media was leveled in the FIR. There was no explanation of the delay in the FIR’s accommodation by the complainant and there was no allegedly blooming allegation in Zaman Park was mentioned in the FIR.
He said that in the FIR, there was no mention of a witness to an alleged instigation or conspiracy, and no time, date or place of alleged conspiracy.
Another lawyer, Rana Mudassar Umar, argued that no concrete evidence was available to establish a link between the accusations of the FIR.
They argued that cases with political motivation had been recorded against the accused simply to humiliate them and make them sing, adding that they were involved in forged cases to stand by the founding president of PTI, Imran Khan.
The accusation, however, implored the court that there were substantial and convincing evidence against the accused showing that he encouraged the public to commit the offense.
He added that the defendants are fully involved in the offenses committed on May 9, in particular the hatching of a conspiracy, to damage the properties of the state, to establish police vans on fire and to create problems of law and order, anarchy and chaos.
