Suspension of sentence in Iddat case: Court reserves verdict on pleas of IK, Bushra

ISLAMABAD: A local court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi’s pleas seeking suspension of sentence in the Iddat case against them.

Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka, while hearing the case, reserved its judgment on Khan and his wife’s appeals against the trial court verdict and fixed June 27 for the announcement of the judgment.

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on June 13 directed the Sessions court to decide Khan and his wife’s pleas seeking suspension of sentence within 10 days.

Khan and his wife’s counsel Barrister Salman Safdar, Khalid Yosaf Chaudhry as well as the complainant Khawar Maneka - former husband of Bushra Bibi - lawyer Zahid Asif Chaudhry argued before the court.

At the start of the hearing, Safdar while arguing before the court said that more than 15 hearings have been held on these appeals during three months.

During the previous hearing, the complainant’s counsel used different delaying tactics, he said.

He further said that one of the important things in this application is that one part of the crime was in Lahore and the second part in Islamabad. Nikkah was solemnised in Lahore but the sentence was awarded in Islamabad, which did not come under the ambit of this court, he said.

Khan’s counsel told the court that the witnesses produced by the complainant had not included his children. Without naming Awn Chaudhry, Khan’s counsel said that in this case, only a leader of a political party appeared as a witness.

Safdar said that the main allegation in this case is that the Nikkah has been solemnised without completion of the Iddat period. If both husbands had been claimed about the allegation leveled against the accused or their children filed the complaint then it could have made sense, he said, adding that in this case, children are not the complainant.

He said that half of the prosecution claims proved false after the deletion of Section 469b of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). This case would have been of some importance if it had been filed on time, he said.

PTI founding chairman’s counsel said that in this case the court had framed the charge in the absence of Bushra Bibi. He also said that for suspension of sentence, one point is sufficient is two why court proceedings were continued after court time. We were not permitted to produce our witnesses, he said, adding that Bushra Bibi’s children were to appear before the court as our witnesses. The next day the court announced the judgment without providing an opportunity to present our witnesses, he said.

He said that a strong ground for suspension of sentence is that the applicant is a woman. There is no mention of Iddat in Section 496 B of PPC, he said, adding that marrying within Iddat is not a crime, he said.

During the hearing, the judge said that he would decide the case according to the law. The judge asked if a husband dies during the Iddat period then the woman would get the share in the inheritance. You have to satisfy the court in this regarding during the hearing of main appeals, the judge told Khan’s counsel.

The court took a short break after the completion of the arguments of Khan’s lawyer. When the hearing resumed after the break, Maneka’s counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry argued that the court has to see whether in this case, the sentence has to be suspended or not.

He further said that the applicant’s counsel used the word “lair” for the complainant Maneka.

The whole clip of his client’s interview has not been played in the court, he said, adding that Maneka’s son Musa Maneka had also given an interview to a private TV channel. In this interview, he [Maneka son] said that fake news have spread regarding Bushra Bibi and Khan’sNikkah.

Chaudhry said that the court has to see who is a lair and who is telling the truth. He said that there is no statement of Bushra Bibi regarding Iddat. When Mufti Saeed was a member of the PTI’s core committee, he was good but when he became an opponent, then he became bad. He also said that this is not a short-term sentence.

The judge told Maneka’s counsel that during the previous hearing, he [judge] asked a question about when your client came to know about the marriage. Maneka during the cross-examination told the court that he came to know about marriage on January 2, the complainant’s counsel said.

The judge said that then why he [Maneka] had not filed the petition at that time. Salman Akram Raja Khan’s counsel stated that your client the petition after completing ‘Chilla’, the judge said.

To this complainant, the counsel objected to Raja’s claims and said that his client was arrested by an investigation agency for a probe. Was there any pressure or any threats hurled at the complainant, the judge asked. Why the complainant had not applied in this regard, the judge said.

Chaudhry replied that respectable families tried to not make public their family matters.

The court after hearing the arguments, reserved its judgment and set June 27 for the announcement of its verdict.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024