RAWALPINDI: A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC), Rawalpindi Bench, here on Monday admitted appeals for regular hearing in the matter of two convicted police officers in the Benazir Bhutto murder case who challenged their sentences saying they were made scapegoats as the court suspended their conviction.
An Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) of Rawalpindi on August 31 announced the verdict through which the court convicted Additional Inspector General (retd) Syed Saud Aziz and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Khurram Shehzad with 17 years imprisonment each.
At Monday's hearing, an LHC division bench comprising Justice Muhammad Tariq Abbasi and Justice Habib Ullah Amir issued notices to the complainant in this case Inspector Kashif Riaz, who is the former SHO of 'Police Station City' and also directed the prosecution of this case to submit record.
Further hearing of the case will be held after fixing the matter by registrar’s office. Both the petitioners have challenged the sentences under section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Saud Aziz and Khurram Shehzad were awarded 10-year imprisonment under section 119 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) with fine of Rs500,000 while 7-year rigorous imprisonment under section 201 of PPC with fine of Rs500,000.
Section 119 of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) is about criminal negligence while section 201 PPC is about destroying evidence. Both the petitioners through their counsels Azam Nazir Tarrar and Raja Ghanim Aabir advocates adopted before the court that the convictions and sentences awarded to them were not maintainable in peculiar circumstances of the case and on the basis of law applicable thereto. That there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Trial court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its perspective while ignoring settled principle of criminal law. The petitioners said that five co-accused were acquitted while they were made scapegoats.
ATC instead of applying judicious mind to this case had relied upon the inquiry/investigation, the petitions said. “There is not a single iota of evidence available that the petitioners facilitated the commission of offence or voluntarily concealed any act or illegally omitted to perform their duties, therefore conviction recorded against the petitioners is totally unsustainable as it is based on surmises and conjunctures.”
