LAHORE: An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore on Monday announced its verdict in two separate May 9 cases, convicting several senior PTI leaders, including Umar Sarfraz Cheema, Dr. Yasmin Rashid, Ejaz Chaudhry, and Mian Mehmoodur Rasheed. However, the court acquitted PTI Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi in both cases related to the violent incidents following the arrest of PTI founder Imran Khan on May 9, 2023.
The ATC, which held its proceedings inside Lahore’s Kot Lakhpat Jail, delivered the verdict reserved a week ago in two cases: one involving the burning of police vehicles at Rahat Bakery near Lahore Corps Commander House, and the other related to the attack on Shadman Police Station.
In the Rahat Bakery case, the court acquitted seven of the 17 accused, including Qureshi, while sentencing the others, including Cheema, Dr. Yasmin, Ejaz Chaudhry, and Rashid, to ten years in prison. The acquitted included Muhammad Awais, Faizan, Taya Sultan, Shahid Baig, Sohail Khan, Rafiuddin, Fareed Khan, Sulaiman Ahmad, Abdul Qadir, and Majid Ali.
In the Shadman Police Station case, the ATC acquitted 12 of the 25 accused persons, including Qureshi. The court convicted Cheema, Dr. Yasmin Rashid, Ejaz Chaudhry, Rashid, and sentenced them to 10 years in prison. Additionally, PTI’s Aliya Hamza and Sanam Javed were sentenced to 5 years in prison.
The defense counsel, Burhan Moazzam Malik, argued that the accused were falsely implicated in the FIRs, and the evidence presented was fabricated. He pointed to contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, who admitted to giving statements in multiple ATCs. The defense also questioned the legitimacy of the charges, citing previous verdicts and ongoing trials for similar allegations.
Malik contended that the accused had already been tried in earlier cases and any further proceedings violated constitutional provisions, as they were being punished twice for the same offence. He also argued that no concrete evidence linked the accused to the crimes in question.
The prosecution, however, maintained that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused incited the public to commit the offences. The court concluded that the accused were responsible for inciting violence, damaging state property, and creating chaos during the May 9 riots.
