ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday acquitted four Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) workers who had been convicted in connection with the May 9 riots.
The convicts had challenged their sentences in the IHC.
Earlier, the ATC, headed by Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, had sentenced Sohail Khan, Mohammad Akram, Shahzeb and Mira Khan to 10 years in prison on May 30 for their alleged involvement in attacking a police station in Islamabad’s Ramna area.
The convicts had been charged under Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) Sections 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing official duty), 188 (disobeying order of a public servant), 324 (attempted murder), 353 (assault on public servants), 436 (arson) and 440 (mischief); Section 144 of CrPC; and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997.
They were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 7 ATA, five years under Section 324 of PPC, four under Section 436, two each under sections 353 and 148.
In total, 11 PTI members, including MNA Abdul Latif, were sentenced, but only four were arrested while the remaining suspects are still at large.
May 9, 2023, refers to the day when former prime minister and PTI founding chairman Imran Khan was taken into custody by paramilitary Rangers from the Islamabad High Court premises on charges of corruption.
The PTI founder’s arrest sparked countrywide protests, during which demonstrators allegedly belonging to the former ruling party vandalized state-owned buildings and military installations, including the Lahore Corps Commander’s House, commonly known as Jinnah House.
Following the protests, several PTI leaders and workers were arrested on various charges, including setting government infrastructure on fire.
On Thursday, a divisional bench of IHC comprising Justice Azam Khan and Justice Khadim Hussain Somroo overturned the verdict of ATC, declaring the sentences void after hearing arguments from both sides.
PTI lawyers, including Babar Awan, Sardar Masroof and Amna Ali, represented the appellants in the IHC.
Awan argued that out of nine prosecution witnesses, only one — ASI Muhammad Sharif — identified the accused. He said no injuries were reported despite allegations of gunfire.
“Punish for crimes proven, but do not turn the system into a joke,” he told the court.
Justice Somroo questioned the prosecution about the evidence to which the prosecutor responded that evidence existed but requested additional time to present it. The court, however, rejected this plea, observing that all arguments had already been heard.
The bench noted that no medico-legal certificates (MLCs) or injured persons were presented and questioned the basis for convictions without proving the accused were present at the crime scene.
The IHC observed that none of the witnesses had stated in their testimonies that the accused were present at the site.
The bench further questioned whether the court was now expected to convict solely on the basis of an identification parade.
