ISLAMABAD: A visibly distressed mother of slain Zain Rauf informed the Supreme Court on Monday that she had no means to fight her son’s killers who were very powerful and influential.

Accompanied by her two daughters, Ghazala Rauf appeared before a three-judge bench headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim and said she had accepted the loss of her son as the will of the God and did not have resources to fight these people.

And talking to reporters outside the court after the hearing, she rejected a perception that she had been under any pressure and asserted that she had not forgiven or pardoned the killers. But she said she did not want to pursue the case anymore.

The apex court had taken notice of acquittal by an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore of five suspects, including Mustafa Kanju, son of former state minister Siddique Kanju, in the Zain murder case.

At the last hearing on Nov 10, the apex court had summoned the complainants and eyewitnesses.

On Monday, the court also held a hearing in chamber in which Zain’s mother and two sisters were summoned. It later ordered the Punjab IG to take the victim’s family in protective custody and asked prosecutors to provide record of the appeal moved by the provincial government in the Lahore High Court against the ATC decision.

At the last hearing, the prosecution had told the apex court that the complainants and eyewitnesses had recanted their earlier deposition made before the ATC after they had been pressurised and offered monetary inducement that led them to sign on blank papers.

Inside the courtroom, the SC bench asked Zain’s mother to narrate what had happened on the day her son had been killed.

Ms Rauf only said that she had come on court’s summons and that she had two daughters and could not fight the influential people.

The court comforted the grief-stricken mother and said she need not be afraid of anyone. Not even police can harass her and that the state will now contest the matter because it is its responsibility to bring the criminals to justice.

The court observed that it would decide the matter in accordance with the law as no-one was above it. “The way the case was heard, prime facie, it seems the ATC judge has not done justice,” Justice Muslim said.

Ms Rauf replied in the negative when the court asked if her brother Sohail Afzal had her consent to become a complainant in the case.

Punjab’s Prosecutor General (PG) Syed Ehtesham Qadir informed the court that the provincial government had already challenged the acquittal of the accused in the LHC, adding that propriety demanded that the apex court should let the high court decide the appeal so that it could not cause any prejudice to any party.

“Should we wash off our hands,” Justice Muslim said, adding that the Punjab government approached the high court after the Supreme Court had taken suo motu notice which had a larger scope.

In reply to a court’s question, the PG said none of the accused had fled the country, adding that official witnesses had not been examined by the trial court. Besides, the prosecution was not given proper opportunity to present its case.

He said Sohail Afzal had signed the blank paper and resiled from the statement he had made before the trial court that he was an eyewitness to his nephew’s murder.

The Supreme Court was displeased by the fact that ASI Mehboob Alam, who had witnessed what was believed to be payment of money by the accused to the witnesses for retracting their earlier stance before the trial court within its premises, first went to register an FIR and then arrested the accused when it should have been the other way round.

Mustafa Kanju, along with his four guards, had allegedly opened fire on a vehicle near Cavalry Ground area in Lahore on April 1, killing Zain and injuring a passerby.

The accused were acquitted of all charges by ATC-I Presiding Judge Mohammad Qasim because of lack of evidence on Oct 28 though the trial court had earlier indicted the suspects for killing Zain and injuring Husain.

The ATC had ordered the release of the accused after they moved an application under Section 265-K CrPC seeking acquittal of all charges after the complainant of the case and all prosecution witnesses recanted.

Published in Dawn, November 17th, 2015