LAHORE:
The judge of the Anti -Terrorist Court Manzer Ali Gill has observed that the violence of May 9 did not qualify as a peaceful protest by any global standard, noting that the coordinated attacks were carried out simultaneously in different cities, specifically directing state buildings, military facilities and monuments associated with the Armed Forces.
Issuing the detailed trial in the case of Rahat Bakery, Judge Gill said the evidence showed that the party leaders had been involved in the hatching of a conspiracy in relation to the attacks that followed the arrest of the founding president of PTI, Imran Khan.
It is pertinent to note that PTI omer Sarfraz Cheema, Ijaz Chaudhry, Mian Mehmood-Ur-Rasheed, Dr. Yasmin Rashid and others had received 10-year prison sentences in the case.
The court argued that the protest itself was not a crime, but once violence was introduced, the character of a protest changed.
Judge Gill pointed out that while citizens around the world protest peacefully, holding banners without taking the law in their own hands, in Pakistan, official and military and military facilities buildings throughout the country were attacked.
He added that in the current digital age, no incident can be hidden for a long time and “several clips, snapshots and other materials are still available on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, X and Tiktok until today. Simply clicking on the link, everyone could visualize each and every one of the incidents of tragic moments.”
Defense questions Evidence of prosecution
During the trial, the defense lawyer of the leaders of PTI condemned raised more than 100 challenges to the evidence of the Prosecutor’s Office, arguing that he failed to resist the scrutiny.
They noticed that none of the defendants were appointed in the initial FIR; There were no descriptions of their identities, or accusations of instigation or provocation, there is no explanation for the delay in the accommodation of the FIR and the inconsistencies obvious in the deadlines and the testimony of the witnesses.
The lawyer also argued that the Prosecutor’s Office had not established the burning of vehicles or properties, had retained CCTV images and call data records, and had produced digital material, including CD and USB, without authentication or reproduction in court as required under the standards of the Supreme Court, which made it inadmissible.
They also claimed that the conviction amounted to a double danger, since it depended on the same evidence and testimony used in other cases.
‘Conspiracy witnesses’ questioned
Two witnesses of the Prosecutor who claimed to have heard the alleged conspiracy, Chief Agent Muhammad Khalid and the sub -inspector Hassam Afzal, were subjected to extensive interrogation.
Khalid admitted that his assignment to monitor PTI leaders in Zaman Park orally received; that no FIR was recorded on the alleged conspiracy meetings; that he did not keep any record of his arrivals or exits; no evidence of audio or video; And he never returned to the supposed place of meetings with the investigator for corroboration.
Similarly, if Hassam Afzal testified that his duty was broadcast verbally, that his phone was not seized or examined, that he did not carry a mobile during visits to Zaman Park, and that he was not familiar with the adjacent residents around the Imran Khan residence.
In addition, he acknowledged that he had not registered any footage or invited to others to observe the meetings.
