KARACHI: An antiterrorism court on Wednesday convicted two men, said to be associated with the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, of killing a police official and exonerated four others of the same charge.
Six accused — Ishtiaq alias Policewala, Syed Abu Irfan alias Urfee, Syed Shakir Shah alias Rafay, Zakir Hussain alias Adeel Agha, Khuwaja Mohammad Faisal and Shafique alias Shafiqur Rehman — were charged with allegedly killing DSP Nawaz Ranjha and his driver on M.A. Jinnah Road near the Radio Pakistan building within the remit of the Preedy police station in August 2010.
On Wednesday, the ATC-XII judge pronounced the verdict reserved earlier after recording evidence and final arguments from both sides.
The judge found Ishtiaq and Abu Irfan guilty of murdering the police officer, but awarded them lesser sentences due to defects in the investigation.
The court handed down life term to accused Ishtiaq and 10-year imprisonment to accused Irfan. They were also ordered to pay diyat to the legal heirs of the victim.
An ATC sentences Ishtiaq Policewala to life and Abu Irfan to 10-year imprisonment
The court, however, acquitted Irfan in the second case regarding possessing an illicit weapon.
Four other accused — Shakir, Zakir Hussain, Khuwaja Faisal and Shafique — were acquitted as the court gave them the benefit of doubt due to faulty investigation.
Jail authorities were directed to release them forthwith if not wanted in any other criminal case. Khuwaja Faisal was already on bail.
The case against three alleged absconding suspects — Noman, alias Nomi, Murtaza Bhai and Rasheed Bhai — was kept on dormant file until their arrest or surrender.
According to the prosecution, four armed assailants on two motorcycles opened indiscriminate fire on DSP Nawaz Ranjha’s car and escaped. Ranjha and his driver died on the spot while a woman passer-by sustained injuries.
A case was registered under Sections 302 (premeditated murder), 324 (attempted murder), 353 (criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his duty), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at the Preedy police station.
In their statements recorded under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the six detained accused denied the charges while Ishtiaq and Irfan also denied the recoveries of weapons from their possession. All of them deposed that all the recoveries and other documentary evidence had been managed against them.
IGP told to take action against IO for faulty probe
The judge directed the office to send a copy of the judgement to the inspector general of police to take action against police officials, including investigating officer Inspector Abdul Fateh Phulpoto, who had been awarded a medal for his efficiency in the present case, for making the evidence technically defective to create doubts.
The judge pointed out that the IO did not arrange identification of accused Ishtiaq and Irfan by five eyewitnesses — Ahmer Siddiqui, Bilquees, Madhan, Ghulam Mustafa and Saddam Hussain — before a judicial magistrate.
The court further noted that later eyewitness Siddiqui, the then deputy director (parks) of the District Municipal Corporation South, did not identify the accused during an identification parade. The judge observed that had the IO arranged the same at an initial stage, a piece of evidence could have been preserved.
The court also mentioned that according to the ballistic analysis report 9mm and .30-bore pistols were used in the crime and that 9mm pistol was allegedly recovered from accused Irfan.
However, the IO of the illicit weapon case, Malik Mohammad Raees, did not send spent bullet casings to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for matching. Rather the empties were sent by Inspector Phulpoto, the IO in the main murder case, which was an irregularity committed by both IOs, as it was a technical defect/omission during investigation.
The order stated that while recording his statement Sub-Inspector Shams-ud-Din, who was witness of the arrest of Irfan and recovery of the pistol from him, refused to identify the accused before the court, but admitted that the pistol was the same.
Later, IO Phulpoto moved an application to his high-ups stating that with the passage of time such pistol might have been changed at the malkhana of the City Court, where it was kept.
The judge observed that if this was the position, it meant case properties kept at malkhana were not safe and this point was to be looked into by the IGP by taking his personal interest.
If the pistol was not the same, which was recovered from the accused, it was legal duty of IO Phulpoto to raise such point before the court during his evidence, which also put shadow of doubt upon his personality. Later on to save his skin, he moved such application to his high-ups, the judge added.
The judge noted that witness Shams mentioned a wrong number of the pistol and defended the error as a typographical error by the FSL authorities, while according to the investigation report, it was unnumbered. “This attempt also amounts to … undue, indirect favour to the accused Abu Irfan,” the judge observed.
IO Phulpoto also recorded the statements of then SHO Inspector Malik Mohammad Saleem and another witness Saima Arif under Section 161 of the CrPC during a period when the investigation was transferred from him and entrusted to someone else, the judgement said.
