A judicial commission investigating the murder of young entrepreneur Mir Raza Ali has strongly questioned SSP Special Investigation Unit Samiullah Soomro over alleged lapses in the investigation, including the burning of the crime scene and the handling of key evidence.
Follow Times of Karachi on Google News and add as a preferred Source on Google
The one-member commission, headed by Sindh High Court (SHC) Justice Omar Sial, held a hearing on Thursday during which SSP Samiullah Soomro, who headed the first investigation team, appeared before the commission.
Commission Questions Burning of Crime Scene
During the proceedings, Justice Omar Sial questioned the SSP about the circumstances in which the crime scene was set on fire.
“You had the crime scene burned?” the judge asked.
SSP Soomro said he had assigned a sub-inspector to search the area for bullet casings. However, the police team later informed him that dense bushes made the search difficult.
The SSP identified police officer Ghaus as the person who set fire to the crime scene. He added that another team, headed by ASP Ashar, was sent to the location the following day and recovered bullet casings.
The judge asked whether setting fire to a crime scene was part of standard police procedure.
“No, sir,” Soomro replied.
Justice Sial referred to the Benazir Bhutto and Murtaza Bhutto cases, where questions had also been raised over the preservation of crime scenes.
“Now Mir Raza’s crime scene has also been burned. Soomro, you too appear suspicious,” the judge remarked.
Soomro told the commission that he had not instructed anyone to burn the crime scene.
The judge criticised the investigation and said the lapses had seriously affected the case, saying, “Because of you, the entire case has been destroyed.”
Questions Over Investigation Procedures
The commission also questioned whether officers who lacked the required capacity or independence had been assigned to investigate the case.
According to the commission, investigators had stated that 23 of the 33 statements recorded in the case were written by someone other than the designated investigation officer, who subsequently signed them.
The commission questioned who had recorded the statements and whether the procedure was lawful.
Soomro acknowledged that the investigation officer should have recorded the statements personally.
The commission also questioned whether pressure had been exerted on the investigation.
“When an officer like you does such things, it gives the impression that there is some pressure, but you are not confessing this,” the commission observed.
Questions Over Mobile Phone Evidence
The commission also raised questions about the handling of Mir Raza’s mobile phone and the narrative surrounding its recovery.
According to the commission, a video had been provided to the media showing Mir Raza allegedly throwing an object away. The commission questioned why the media had been told that the object was his mobile phone.
The commission further questioned why, after the phone was recovered from a drain, a different narrative emerged suggesting that it had been found near a wedding hall.
Justice Omar Sial also questioned why police had not corrected the narrative portraying the incident as a suicide.
SSP Soomro told the commission that the mobile phone had already been sent to the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) before he assumed responsibility for the investigation.
The commission also asked whether police officers themselves had attempted to unlock or access the phone.
Soomro said his team had not attempted to unlock the device, while adding that it was possible the CTD had tried to access it.
Background of Mir Raza Ali Case
The body of 25-year-old businessman Mir Raza Ali was found in Karachi’s Gulistan-e-Jauhar area on July 29, a day after he went missing.
Earlier, lawyer Jibran Nasir, who is representing Mir Raza’s family, had accused police and the provincial government of failing to properly investigate the case.
Nasir also alleged that officials who compromised the investigation had not faced appropriate action.
Speaking after a court hearing, he alleged that the authorities’ objective appeared to be to protect those responsible for the killing. He further alleged that officers who attempted to prevent such interference were suspended or removed from their positions.
