MULTAN, Aug 1: The judge of DG Khan anti-terrorism court in a surprise move on Thursday directed the special public prosecutor in the Meerwala gang-rape case to produce an authority by the government to plead the case of Mukhtaran Mai.

The interesting situation emerged when a lawyer from DG Khan district courts submitted power of attorney in the court to represent Mukhtaran Mai.

At this, Jatoi police SHO Abdul Lateef Chandia moved an application on behalf of the victim that she had not appointed another advocate except the one already appointed by the government to represent her. Mukhtaran Mai adhered to the SHO’s statement when the judge called her to get her version.

This was the first occasion that she had appeared in court-room before the judge since the trial had started from July 26 last. The judge, Malik Zulfiqar Ali, talked to her in Urdu but she could not understand the language. Therefore, an ATC stenographer translated the query into Seraiki, to which, she replied that she did not have other lawyer other than the state-appointed.

When the lawyer withdrew his power of attorney, the judge demanded official letter from the special public prosecutor, Ramzan Khalid Joiya, to prove that he and his assistants were deputed by the government. But, the special public prosecutor could not produce the authority letter.

The judge, therefore, asked Joiya and two female advocates were to produce authorisation of being the counsel of Mukhtaran Mai to justify their presence and prosecution of the case. They were directed to bring the proof with them on the next day of hearing on Friday (today).

Earlier in the morning, the defence resumed the cross-examination of Maulvi Abdul Razzaq (PW11). He said he had delivered the sermon on June 28 last (Friday) in which he condemned the Mastois’ act. He said he did not know the name of the area journalist who heard his sermon and then followed the gang-rape story.

He said he was unaware till June 30 that Shakoor had also been sodomized.

He disclosed that Mukhtaran Mai had made her statement to the police at Jhugiwala Chowk in his presence in the morning of June 30 last. When the police official, he said, read out her statement she insisted that the names of armed people present in the Panchayat on June 22 be also included. The official stated to her that their names would be included in ‘zimni’ (supplementary statements after the registration of an FIR).

Upon this, the defence counsel, Malik Saleem, pointed out that the PW11 had not mentioned names of the armed people in his statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. Later on, the defence presented before the court the version of the accused.

He stated that on June 22, Abdul Shakoor and Salma Mastoi, were found in a compromising condition in nearby sugar cane fields. Her brothers, Abdul Khaliq and others, took Shakoor to their house. In the meanwhile, a police party reached there who took the boy to the Jatoi police station to register a rape case against him.

Both the parties called their sympathisers to resolve the matter. Maulvi Razzaq proposed ‘watta satta’ (exchange marriages) between the two families. Abdul Khaliq demanded that Mukhtaran Mai be married to him first and then they would marry Salma with Shakoor after getting him released from police custody.

The suggestion was agreed and Mukhtaran Mai was taken to Khaliq’s house by her family where Maulvi Razzaq solemnized her ‘nikah’ with the former. Later, her family retired to their house. When Shakoor was got released, he told his parents that he had been sodomized by three Mastois. Moreover, the Mastois also refused to marry Salma with Shakoor because he had accused her brother, Punnu, of sodomizing him.

The defence lawyer further stated that Shakoor’s family complained to Maulvi Razzaq that the Mastois were not honouring the settlement. At this, the Maulvi gave the Mastois few days to fulfil their promise. When they did not succumb to his pressure, he got lodged gang-rape and sodomy cases against the Mastois.

Maulvi Razzaq (PW11) termed the defence version a pack of lies and nothing more. He said it was the pressure of media that compelled the police to take action and make arrests of the accused. He refused that the governor, the ministers and other dignitaries who visited Meerwala had doled out hundreds of thousands of rupees to him and Mukhtaran Mai. He also disagreed with the defence that the Meerwala issue was highlighted in the press by them to get money.

He denied that he had ever led a procession in the area to support Osama bin Laden and that he received five years’ militant training in Afghanistan. He also refuted the defence claim that no one was ready to marry Mukhtaran’s younger sisters due to her “bad character”.

On the conclusion of cross-questioning of PW11, the prosecution brought Altaf Hussain as PW12 to testify his statement. He is said to be an eyewitness who remained present in the Panchayat throughout its proceedings. He is the brother of PW11.

He confirmed that Abdul Khaliq, Allah Ditta, Fayyaz Hussain and Ghulam Fareed took Mukhtaran away at gunpoint from the Panchayat when she came there on the assurance of Ramzan Pachaar and Faiz Bakhsh Mastoi that her family would be pardoned on her seeking apology. He said that perpetrators were hurling threats that anyone who tried to follow them would be murdered.

The PW12 said she was thrown out of the room naked after an hour and the perpetrators threw her clothes on her as well. To the defence queries, he refuted that he or his family had any kind of enmity with the Mastois.

After him, Mukhtaran Mai’s uncle Sabir Hussain appeared before court as PW13. He deposed that Faiza (Faiz Bakhsh Mastoi), Ramzan Pachaar and Ghulam Farid did not agree to the ‘exchange marriages’ and instead they stressed for ‘a rape for a rape’. He said they had threatened that otherwise the 200/250 Mastois would attack the Gujjars.

Mukhtaran Mai, he said, was later taken to the Panchayat when Ramzan Pachaar and Faiza assured them that on her public apology for the act of her brother the Gujjar family would be pardoned.

To a defence query, he said Faiza (the chief juror) was in full control of the gathering and that what he (accused Faiza) stated to pardon Mukhtaran when she tendered apology was mere ‘Duniavi’ (ostentation).

Cross-examination to PW13 was under way when the matter “who is the state-appointed counsel of Mukhtaran?” came to court notice and the proceedings were in consequence adjourned for Friday.