The judicial commission investigating the death of young businessman Mir Raza Ali voiced strong dissatisfaction on Thursday over significant lapses in the initial police inquiry. The panel rigorously questioned the former investigating officer (IO) about missing evidence, inadequate documentation of recoveries, and procedural gaps at the crime scene.
Presided over by Sindh High Court Justice Omar Sial, the commission also extensively interrogated Mir Raza’s business partner, Ahmed Bharde, regarding his media statements. Bharde was instructed to privately meet with the deceased’s family to address their concerns prior to giving his final testimony.
During the ninth hearing, the commission concentrated primarily on the investigation led by Inspector Shabbir Laghari, the first IO assigned to the case. Laghari faced repeated questioning about the collection and recording of crucial evidence such as CCTV footage, Mir Raza’s mobile phone and Apple Watch, a pistol holster, forensic samples from the body, and other material retrieved from the crime scene.
Further scrutiny was directed at why several potentially important investigative leads were not fully pursued, including the activities of employees at a nearby nursery and records related to a guesthouse close to where the body was discovered.
Laghari stated he was appointed to the investigation on July 28 between 2:30pm and 4pm. He visited Mir Raza’s residence, prepared a memo, and obtained signatures from family members. Although he reviewed street CCTV cameras, he claimed no relevant footage was found. However, the commission pressed him on why key investigative actions were poorly documented and why recovery memos were missing for some evidence handed over by other officers.
At one point, the commission questioned whether Laghari was shielding Ferozabad SHO Adeel Afzal, asking why the SHO was present at the crime scene and involved in collecting CCTV footage despite Laghari being the designated IO. Laghari explained that investigation and operations police often collaborate due to staffing shortages, with Afzal securing CCTV footage while others performed different duties. The commission remained unconvinced and criticized the absence of proper documentation regarding the SHO’s role and evidence collection.
Regarding the crime scene, Laghari said he visited the location on July 30 with another officer, where they questioned nursery employees. The SHO had reportedly been there earlier and pointed out where the body was found. The commission challenged how investigators could identify relevant evidence without properly securing and preserving the scene initially. Questions were raised about the absence of a crime scene unit and why the nursery workers were not treated as a primary line of inquiry. The panel also questioned the acceptance of the workers’ claim that no gunshot was heard, noting their statements were not critically examined.
The presence of a rickshaw near the site was also scrutinized, with doubts expressed about whether the vehicle and its occupants were adequately investigated. Notably, only a fragment of a bloodstained flowerpot was reportedly found at the scene, prompting the commission to question if investigators considered that Mir Raza’s body might have been moved from another location. Laghari stated the investigation was ongoing and he could not provide a conclusive opinion.
The handling of Mir Raza’s mobile phone and Apple Watch drew particular attention. Laghari said the phone was recovered about 100 yards from the crime scene by SHO Afzal, though the recovery memo bore the name of a different officer. The commission highlighted inconsistencies in the records regarding the individuals who recovered the phone. Laghari admitted the father’s name in the memo was incorrect and said the phone was handed to him in sealed condition on August 8 after supposedly being sent to the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) for forensic analysis. The commission questioned how the phone could remain sealed after forensic examination, to which Laghari suggested it might have been resealed.
Similar concerns were raised about the Apple Watch, which Laghari said was also received sealed on August 8 and allegedly sent to the CTD, though no documentation confirmed this. The commission probed why the watch remained with police for several days and examined claims about screenshots allegedly extracted before it was formally processed as evidence. Mir Raza’s family lawyer, Jibran Nasir, voiced worries over unauthorized access to the watch and data obtained from it, including an alleged iCloud login.
The commission questioned the evidentiary value of the CCTV footage collected early in the investigation. Laghari mentioned some footage showed Mir Raza throwing a mobile phone, but the commission pointed out testimonies indicating the phone had not been thrown at that location. They also asked why footage from a guesthouse was obtained but its digital video recorder was apparently not seized. Laghari attributed technical matters to the police station’s IT focal person. Furthermore, the commission criticized the lack of a thorough investigation into the guesthouse’s ownership and records.
Regarding forensic samples collected during the post-mortem, Laghari said samples were taken on July 30 but only submitted to the laboratory on August 6. He explained the delay was due to the lab’s requirement for the post-mortem report before accepting samples; the report was received on August 3, and the lab was closed on August 4 when he attempted submission. The commission questioned where the samples were stored during the interim and whether proper legal procedures for handling case property were followed.
Laghari revealed that the investigation was reassigned after the family lost confidence in his probe, with evidence and records handed over to a new IO.
The commission expressed sharp criticism of the investigation’s quality, stating that the deficiencies forced the panel to uncover facts that should have been established during the initial police inquiry. It questioned why key evidence had not been gathered or properly recorded and why important investigative leads were neglected. When Laghari asserted satisfaction with his work and claimed a clear conscience, the commission cautioned him against providing answers that could mislead. It also asked if he would be content with the investigation’s conduct if the victim had been his own child.
Ultimately, the panel observed that these shortcomings led to unnecessary government expenditure and wasted the time of the media and commission on issues that should have been resolved during the original investigation.
Leave an opinion