Directs relevant authorities to conduct case investigation ‘impartially, fairly and expeditiously’
Mir Raza Ali, owner of the popular dessert shop Wafflix, whose body was found in Gulistan-e-Jauhar after he was allegedly kidnapped from PECHS. — SCREENGRAB/ Youtube
KARACHI:
The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Wednesday rejected a plea seeking the formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in the Mir Raza murder case, dismissing the family’s concerns over an alleged “botched probe”.
Raza’s family, through lawyer Jibran Nasir, sought the formation of a JIT, alleging serious lapses in the original probe, including mishandling and destruction of evidence and failure to preserve CCTV footage. The Sindh government opposed the request, saying a judicial commission had already been formed to investigate the death. On Monday, the court reserved its verdict on a petition after the investigating officer (IO) probing the death of Raza told the SHC that investigators were clear that the case was one of murder and not suicide.
According to the written order available to The Express Tribune, the court said that the investigating officer had assured it that the investigation would be completed in accordance with the law and if deemed necessary, assistance would also be sought from other investigative and law-enforcement agencies.
The court further said that the Supreme Court judgment cited by the petitioner dealt with a different set of circumstances and directed the relevant authorities to conduct the investigation into the Raza case “impartially, fairly and expeditiously”.
The court further observed that the petitioner can avail all available legal remedies to ensure a transparent and fair investigation.
Read: Mir Raza death was not suicide, says IO as SHC reserves JIT plea verdict
During the hearing, the court also questioned the lawyers about its authority to supervise an ongoing investigation and order the formation of a JIT.
In response, public prosecutors argued that the court had no authority to interfere in or supervise an ongoing investigation, particularly since the police had not yet submitted the challan in the case.
The court ultimately dismissed the petition and directed the investigating officer to complete the investigation in a transparent, fair and expeditious manner.
Speaking to The Express Tribune, Advocate Nasir said he would appeal against the SHC decision announced today, clarifying that his petition had asked for a judicial review into documented failures in the investigation to determine whether they met the threshold for an independent, multidisciplinary JIT in the Raza case.
“With utmost respect for the Honourable SHC, we respectfully disagree with the judgment in our petition to form a JIT in the Raza case and reserve our right to appeal,” he said.
“We never asked the court to investigate Raza’s murder, identify his killers or determine criminal liability. We asked it to judicially review documented failures in the investigation and determine whether they met the threshold for an independent, multidisciplinary JIT,” he added.
He explained that the judgment, as per his understanding, conflated two very different exercises: deciding disputed questions of fact under Article 199, and examining admitted, documented or officially established facts to determine whether an investigation has been compromised.
He argued that after the binding judgment in the case of Sultan Ali recognised “institutional sabotage” as a relevant consideration, he questioned, “how could that question be answered without testing the material placed before the court against that very parameter? Merely distinguishing Sultan Ali on its facts does not answer the principle relied upon.”
He said the “several” highlighted failures were not mere allegations but facts.
“Yet no distinction was drawn between genuinely disputed allegations and admitted or documented facts,” he protested.
“There is a fundamental difference between a Constitutional Court supervising an investigation and judicially reviewing whether the investigation itself has become compromised. The former may be impermissible; the latter is precisely what constitutional judicial review exists for,” the legal counsel for Raza’s family said.
He added the judgement relied on the investigating officer’s (IO) assurance that the investigation would be fair and left remedies open after its conclusion.
“But evidence lost, destroyed or compromised today may never be recovered tomorrow.”
He highlighted that constitutional relief should be effective and “not merely available” when it is already too late.
Case developments
A judicial commission was formed on the request of the Sindh government to probe the death of Raza, who was allegedly kidnapped from PECHS before his body was found in bushes near a wedding hall in Karachi’s Gulistan-e-Johar on July 29. The case had initially been surrounded by uncertainty over whether he had been murdered or died by suicide. The first post-mortem findings contained discrepancies and omissions, leading to a second post-mortem that confirmed his murder. Consequently, considering the probe “botched”, the family filed a petition in the SHC seeking the formation of JIT.
During earlier hearings regarding the formation of JIT, the investigating officer probing the death of Raza told the SHC that investigators were treating the case as murder and had ruled out suicide based on the post-mortem findings. DSP Siraj Lashari said the investigation had restarted “from zero” on August 13 and was being conducted using digital evidence, including CCTV footage. Investigators had recovered a bullet casing but had yet to find the weapon, while final post-mortem and forensic reports were still awaited.
Separately, the judicial commission convened its second hearing on Monday, September 1, wherein it grilled Medico-Legal Officer Dr Usama Sheikh over discrepancies in the first post-mortem report filed by him. The commission also recorded the statements of the victim’s family and Edhi volunteers who shifted his body during the hearing. After the conclusion of the second hearing, Advocate Nasir said the first account of the MLO proved that he was correct about the “botched probe” and, since the commission is not tasked with the probe and can only oversee it, he reiterated that a JIT was crucial for a transparent investigation into the case. The next hearing by the commission is scheduled for tomorrow.
