KARACHI: While expressing resentment at police for not providing the entire record of the Mir Raza Ali murder case, the judicial commission on Monday asked whether this was an attempt to mislead the commission.
It also recorded the statements of two friends of the victim and a police officer and censured that there were glaring contradictions in the versions of witnesses, while their testimonies also did not match the statements recorded by the police.
The one-member commission headed by Justice Omar Sial of the Sindh High Court, formed to investigate the circumstances and possible negligence in the Mir Raza murder investigation, summoned police surgeon Dr Summaiyya Syed and Dr Nasim Ahmed, who headed the medical board in the second autopsy after the deceased’s body was exhumed, for Tuesday (today).
It further directed an additional secretary for the Home Department to inquire whether there were further forensic, ballistic and chemical reports not submitted before the commission and directed that copies of the same be filed in a sealed envelope.
Summons police surgeon over second autopsy
At the outset of the hearing on Monday, Abdul Hasem deposed that he and the victim had been friends since school and that he had last talked to Raza through video call at around 3am on July 27 and Raza was in a very good mood and accompanied by another friend Razique.
He also testified that thereafter, he came to know through Raza’s fiancée, Salwa, that Mir’s WhatsApp account was deleted and that no response was received from his phone, while Razique told him that the victim had dropped him at the office and thereafter, he was not aware of the victim’s whereabouts.
The witness further said that he and Razique went to Raza’s house after his mother informed them that the victim was not at the house, although his car was parked inside the house.
Hasem said that Abdullah Bhardey, Razique and Ahmed searched Raza’s room and that he [Hasem] was not present there, whereas he had obtained a call detail record (CDR) of he [Hasem] was not present there, whereas he had obtained a call detail record (CDR) of Raza through his friend Hamza.
He also deposed that one of his cousins had provided a car to Raza on a rental basis and that he had asked Raza’s sister about the return of the vehicle shortly after he had gone missing.
In response to a question of the commission, he replied that police had summoned him on Aug 1 and advised him to stay away from Raza’s family and not to participate in protests arranged by Raza’s friends.
The witness maintained that initially, he was also involved with the victim in his eatery business and they mutually parted ways in 2022. He said he and Raza had also jointly started crypto trading, but later he left after sustaining losses while the victim was doing well.
The commission asked him why he was giving a different testimony before it as compared to the one recorded by police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), as he had provided complete details about specific financial issues as well as the mental health of Raza before police.
Hasem replied that the police had neither provided him with a copy of his statement nor read it out.
He also asserted that he did not take part in searching inside the victim’s vehicle, but Raza’s parents, who were also present during Monday’s hearing, said that he [Hasam] was also present there to search inside the car.
Abdul Razique said that he and Raza had been friends since 2015 and the victim had picked him up from his office to have dinner at a hotel on the night of the incident and thereafter, the deceased had dropped him back to his office at around 1:15am.
While mainly endorsing the statement of Hasem, he also testified that there was nothing suspicious in his last interaction with Raza, and that he had also participated in searching Raza’s room after his disappearance.
He further asserted that Raza’s vehicle was again checked three days after his burial and he had asked Hasem to request Raza’s father that he [Razique] wanted to take a box containing a playing-card game, found in the vehicle. However, the deceased’s father denied that any permission about the box was sought from him.
At this juncture, Justice Sial deplored that the versions of the victim’s friends were contradicting each other and that they were trying to conceal the facts of the case.
Razique also said that he was not aware of any financial distress faced by Raza. However, the commission confronted him and said that, as per his Section 161 CrPC statement recorded by the police, Raza was in distress due to financial issues and that he was trying to hide facts from the commission.
Both the friends asserted that police were focusing on both angles, murder and suicide, during the investigations.
The then SHO Gulistan-i-Jauhar Karman Qureshi, who was suspended and removed after the murder, said that he deputed ASI Azhar to visit the crime scene after receiving information about the presence of the dead body near a nursery and also informed the SHO and SIO Ferozabad police station, since the case of kidnapping was lodged there.
He also conceded that initially, the crime scene was not secured by the crime scene unit and the crime site was partly set on fire reportedly on the instructions of SSP Samiullah Soomro.
The commission asked why he had attempted to interfere in the investigation and also called Ahmed Bhardey, business partner of Raza, and his brother Abdullah Bhardey on Aug 9, when he was not authorised to do so.
However, the police officer could not offer any satisfactory reply and contended that he was assisting the SIO Ferozabad and trying to get information from both brothers.
He further admitted that initially, the police could not find anything around the body, but later managed to recover a holster, spent bullet casing, and a lighter from the same place.
During the hearing, the commission realised that the statements of witnesses initially recorded by the police had not been provided despite the fact that the commission had directed the police to provide all the relevant records.
It remarked that the records were being hidden from the commission and asked whether this was an attempt to mislead it.
Thereafter, the commission issued notice to DIG Amir Farooqui, who is heading the current investigation team. However, after that, the police had produced two statements recorded on Aug 1.
Subsequently, the notice issued to the DIG was withdrawn after the additional secretary home/focal person of the Sindh government, Javed Abro, assured the commission that all relevant documents had been provided to the commission.
It has also directed him to inquire whether there are further forensic, ballistic and chemical reports not submitted before the commission; if not, copies of the same were to be filed in a sealed envelope.
Adjourning the hearing till Tuesday (today), the commission summoned Dr Syed and Dr Ahmed to turn up and record their statements.
It has also bound down SHO Ferozabad and head moharir Gulistan-i-Jauhar Zeenshan Haider to appear on Tuesday as well, since their depositions could not be recorded on Monday due to want of time.
Published in Dawn, September 8th, 2026
