Juvenile Court has acquitted the four minors charged with terrorism following the arson attack on Gaafu Dhaalu Thinadhoo Police Station on 8 February 2012.
In its ruling today, the court said that the minors denied the terrorism charges against them filed by the State.
Two witnesses were presented against the first suspect by the State, who testified to have seen the suspect throwing stones at the Police Station and police officers in front of the Police Station.
The court said however that there was no one who saw the stones hitting any police officer, and no damage was caused to the Police Station by the hurled stones.
The State presented ten witnesses against the second suspect, who also testified to having seen the suspect throwing stones near the Police Station area; but the suspect was acquitted on the basis that there was no one who saw the stones hitting any police officer, and no damage was caused to the Police Station by the hurled stones.
Only one witness was presented against the two remaining suspects, and this witness testified to have seen the two suspects being involved in the unrest, throwing stones at the Police Station and police officers, setting fire to a motorcycle at the Police Station, and entering Gaafu Dhaalu Council Office by force.
The Court said that the suspects had not been physically involved in any unrest, but were present at the area where the unrest took place.
The four minors were charged under Articles 2 (f), 2 (g) and 6 (b) of the Terrorism Prevention Act.
According to Articles 2 (f) and (g), the following activities shall be construed as acts of terrorism: any act of or intent of arson so as to cause harm or damage to person(s) or property, and the use of terror tactics, force or making threats to cause harm or damage to persons or property orally or in writing or other means to create fear amongst the community.
Juvenile Court said that the based on witness testimonies, the four suspects had not been involved in any of the crimes mentioned in Articles 2 (f) and (g) of the Terrorism Prevention Act.
The court said that based on testimonies, the minors were guilty of obstructing the police, however, the court was not able to sentence them for obstructing the police as they had not been charged for that crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment