Mir Raza case: SHO faces tough questioning over FIR, CCTV and missing records

During the hearing, SHO Adil Afzal was questioned about his police service and his contact with Mir Raza’s family.

Adil Afzal told the commission that he joined the police service in 2002. He denied allegations that he had been involved in extrajudicial killings.

He also denied telling Mir Raza’s family on two occasions that he could shoot people.

Questions over FIR registration

The commission asked why an FIR was not registered after Mir Raza’s father approached the police station.

Adil Afzal said the duty officer had spoken to him and maintained that a case was registered when a cognisable offence was made out.

The commission also questioned him about a call allegedly made on the 28th before the case was registered. Adil Afzal said he had not received any such call.

Mir Hussain, Mir Raza’s father, gave a different account. He said the family was told that a case would not be registered for 24 hours.

He also said police officials had suggested that boys sometimes leave home after becoming angry.

Original police record questioned

The commission expressed anger over the non-production of the original police daily diary, or roznamcha.

It questioned why the original record had not been presented and directed officials to provide original documents instead of other material.

The commission also questioned Adil Afzal about his involvement after the investigation was assigned to SIO Arshad Javed.

It asked why he was checking CCTV footage after another officer had been given responsibility for the investigation.

Also Read: Police surgeon Dr Samia reports threats during Mir Raza murder inquiry

Suicide claim and evidence

The commission also raised questions about the claim that Mir Raza had committed suicide.

Mir Raza’s sister said the SHO had told the family that the gunshot came from the front.

Mir Hussain said the SHO later told him that suspects had been traced and that he would receive information within 48 hours.

The commission questioned how suspects could have been traced before the death was later declared a suicide.

Questions were also raised about Mir Raza’s smartwatch, slippers, mobile phone and the guesthouse DVR.

Adil Afzal said the smartwatch was taken for forensic examination, while the mobile phone was recovered on July 30 and sent for forensic examination the following day.

Jibran Nasir questioned the police claim regarding CCTV footage showing Mir Raza throwing his phone.

He asked whether there was footage showing who picked up the phone.

Commission questions police conduct

The commission also questioned the recovery memos and the presence of several police officials during evidence collection.

It asked why names appeared on a memo when some officials were allegedly not present at the location.

Adil Afzal also said the family’s passport had been sought after a request from the CTD technical department. However, when asked to produce the relevant letter, he said he did not have it.

The commission further questioned allegations that witnesses had been stopped or threatened during the investigation and protests.

Adil Afzal denied threatening witnesses.

The commission also told him that it had screenshots of conversations between the family and him and questioned his authority to remain involved in the investigation.