|
|
|
| April 14, 2006 | Friday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 15, 1427 |
Petitions of military court convicts dismissed
ISLAMABAD, April 13: The Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High Court on Thursday dismissed two petitions of six people condemned to death by a military court for an attempt on the life of President Pervez Musharraf.
Convicts Zubair Ahmad, Sarwar Bhatti, Ikhlas Ahmad and Rashid Qureshi had prayed in their petition that they were civilians so the death penalty awarded by the military court should be declared null and void.
Convicts Rana Mohammad Naveed and Amir Sohail, in their application, had requested that orders should be issued for production of the trial court proceedings. Justice Naseem Sikandar, in a short order, dismissed both the petitions.
Earlier, the Supreme Court on Wednesday admitted for regular hearing appeals of five convicts sentenced to death by a military court for their involvement in an attempt on President Pervez Musharraf’s life in 2003.
“We are inclined to grant leave to appeal to petitioners and refer the case to the chief justice for constituting a suitable bench for early hearing,” observed a bench comprising Justice Fakir Mohammad Khokhar and Justice M. Javed Buttar.
Civilian Mushtaq Ahmed, Pakistan Air Force Chief Technician Khalid Mehmood, Corporal Technician Nawazish Ali and Junior Technicians Niaz Mohammad and Adnan Rasheed have approached the apex court against rejection of their appeals by the Rawalpindi Bench of the LHC.
On Nov 19, 2004, a military court had sentenced Mushtaq Ahmed and the other accused to death under the Air Force Act (AFA) for being part of the Dec 14, 2003, plot to assassinate President Musharraf by blowing up the Jhanda Chichi Bridge in Rawalpindi.
On Wednesday, Advocate Mohammad Akram pleaded before the court that a civilian could not be sentenced by a military court under Section 37(e) of the AFA. He said the accused could only be convicted for inciting junior air force employees for sedition under Section 131 of the Pakistan Penal Code, the maximum punishment of which was life imprisonment.
Mr Ahmed’s execution, scheduled for March 15, was delayed when he moved an urgent appeal before the Supreme Court. He was later directed to withdraw the appeal filed by invoking the court’s jurisdiction under fundamental rights (Article 184-3 of the Constitution) and submit it under the court’s original appellate jurisdiction (Article 185-3). The execution of the co-accused, scheduled for March 28, was also delayed when they moved the high court.
The counsel said the co-accused could not be cross-examined as prosecution witnesses against Mr Ahmed and his ‘tutored’ confessional statement recorded before a magistrate after a delay of 143 days should not be considered voluntary.
He questioned whether the field general court marshal could treat the judicial confessional statement of the co-accused recorded after an unexplained delay of 131 to 137 days to be voluntary.
|
|
|
|
