Model Town case: PAT decries police legal team’s cross-examination
Asks ATC to remove “inadmissible evidence” from the court records
PHOTO: MEHMOOD QURESHI/EXPRESS
LAHORE:
There was more controversy as proceedings continued in the Model Town massacre case. The Pakistan Awami Tehreek pointed out to the Anti-Terrorism Court that their party activists, implicated by the state in this case, were being cross-examined by counsels of policemen who are also an accused party. They said the lawyers for the accused policemen were posing inappropriate questions to get answers in favour of the prosecution.
PAT’s counsel told the court that the lawyers of police officials were implicating his clients, also defendants in the case, through “illegal questions”. The party submitted an application, asking the court to delete the portion of cross-examination conducted on behalf of Inspector/SHO Amir Saleem. Prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman, Kashif, Khalil, ASI Sharif, SI Ghulam Ali were cross-examined on the behalf of Saleem. This was after the same witnesses were cross-examined by the applicants in this appeal.
Punjab government replaces Model Town case prosecution team
PAT argued that the sole purpose of the cross-examination conducted by the police officials’ legal team was to prove the case of the prosecution. He said it was an effort to implicate his clients and this manner of hostile cross-examination was not approved by the law under any circumstances or by any stretch of the imagination.
He argued that the answers to such questions could not be inadmissible as evidence. However, he pointed out certain objections had still not been decided over and were still part of case file. The cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, particularly on behalf of SHO Amir Saleem, had an objective to bring ‘inadmissible evidence’ to the case and prove the prosecution’s stance. The only major cross-examination has been conducted on PAT defendants.
After examination of the evidence, the PAT’s counsel, on September 27, once again pointed out to the court that Amir Saleem, through the legal engine of cross-examination and being a police officer, is trying to prove the case of the prosecution against the petitioners. He said that while the policeman’s counsel may not have uttered a word to nominate any of the accused in the case, he fulfilled the same desire through hostile cross-examination. He pointed out that the court turned down the genuine request of the petitioner.
PM Imran orders removal of police officials 'involved' in Model Town killings
It was argued that since the “inadmissible evidence” was yet to be decided upon, the inadmissible parts of the cross-examination, conducted on behalf of SHO Saleem, be taken off from the file. PAT requested that the same be deleted in the larger interest of justice. The counsels of both sides would present their arguments over the matter on September 29 (today).
PAT had earlier claimed that a lawyer from the team defending police officials had slapped one of their witnesses in the courtroom to create panic. The party said this was an effort to intimidate PAT witnesses and keep them at bay during court proceedings. However, the police officials’ lawyers denied the allegation, claiming there was CCTV footage that could be reviewed. They added that if it was established that any PAT witnesses was slapped by a lawyer, the court would be free to impose any degree of penalty.
There was more controversy as proceedings continued in the Model Town massacre case. The Pakistan Awami Tehreek pointed out to the Anti-Terrorism Court that their party activists, implicated by the state in this case, were being cross-examined by counsels of policemen who are also an accused party. They said the lawyers for the accused policemen were posing inappropriate questions to get answers in favour of the prosecution.
PAT’s counsel told the court that the lawyers of police officials were implicating his clients, also defendants in the case, through “illegal questions”. The party submitted an application, asking the court to delete the portion of cross-examination conducted on behalf of Inspector/SHO Amir Saleem. Prosecution witnesses Muhammad Usman, Kashif, Khalil, ASI Sharif, SI Ghulam Ali were cross-examined on the behalf of Saleem. This was after the same witnesses were cross-examined by the applicants in this appeal.
Punjab government replaces Model Town case prosecution team
PAT argued that the sole purpose of the cross-examination conducted by the police officials’ legal team was to prove the case of the prosecution. He said it was an effort to implicate his clients and this manner of hostile cross-examination was not approved by the law under any circumstances or by any stretch of the imagination.
He argued that the answers to such questions could not be inadmissible as evidence. However, he pointed out certain objections had still not been decided over and were still part of case file. The cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, particularly on behalf of SHO Amir Saleem, had an objective to bring ‘inadmissible evidence’ to the case and prove the prosecution’s stance. The only major cross-examination has been conducted on PAT defendants.
After examination of the evidence, the PAT’s counsel, on September 27, once again pointed out to the court that Amir Saleem, through the legal engine of cross-examination and being a police officer, is trying to prove the case of the prosecution against the petitioners. He said that while the policeman’s counsel may not have uttered a word to nominate any of the accused in the case, he fulfilled the same desire through hostile cross-examination. He pointed out that the court turned down the genuine request of the petitioner.
PM Imran orders removal of police officials 'involved' in Model Town killings
It was argued that since the “inadmissible evidence” was yet to be decided upon, the inadmissible parts of the cross-examination, conducted on behalf of SHO Saleem, be taken off from the file. PAT requested that the same be deleted in the larger interest of justice. The counsels of both sides would present their arguments over the matter on September 29 (today).
PAT had earlier claimed that a lawyer from the team defending police officials had slapped one of their witnesses in the courtroom to create panic. The party said this was an effort to intimidate PAT witnesses and keep them at bay during court proceedings. However, the police officials’ lawyers denied the allegation, claiming there was CCTV footage that could be reviewed. They added that if it was established that any PAT witnesses was slapped by a lawyer, the court would be free to impose any degree of penalty.