MULTAN, Aug 2: The defence in the Meerwala gang-rape case on Friday grilled the victim’s uncle.

Sabir Hussain (PW13), maternal uncle of Mukhtaran Mai, is said to be the person who brought his niece before the Mastois Panchayat on the assurance that his Gujjar family would be pardoned on her seeking apology for the act of her brother, Shakoor.

PW13 had given his brief statement on Thursday and his cross-examination had also been started on the same day and could not be finished on Friday due to the adjournment sought by the defence counsel. The judge obliged and adjourned the proceedings till Saturday (today).

Replying to defence queries, PW13 deposed that he along with Faiz Bakhsh Mastoi (chief juror) and Ramzan Pachaar (arbitrator) visited the Jatoi police station and got released his nephew Abdul Shakoor. He said he remained outside the police station while Faiz and Ramzan went inside.

He said in his view no payment deal was struck at the police station for the release of Shakoor and that ASI Muhammad Iqbal did not ask him for the bribe.

He said, however, Ramzan Pachaar had asked him to arrange Rs25,000 for ‘thanedar’ (the ASI), but he told him that he could not arrange such a huge amount. At this, Pachaar demanded Rs10,000 for the release of Shakoor.

He said that Faiz Bakhsh, Ramzan Pachaar and Ghulam Fareed were the members of the Panchayat from the Mastois while Haji Manzoor and Maulvi Abdul Razzaq were their representatives.

He said the Mastois and the Gujjars were about to agree on exchange marriages to resolve the matter when Ramzan Pachaar and Ghulam Fareed came to them (the Mastois) and quoted Faiza (Faiz Bakhsh) as saying that the Gujjars could be pardoned if Mukhtaran Mai sought public apology for the act of her brother.

The PW13 said Mukhtaran Mai had been brought to the Panchayat to seek pardon as per the Balochi tradition. He said it was misleading that women had never sought pardon (in Balochi tradition) by going to the gatherings. He said his Gujjar clan did not belong to the Baloch origin.

He said that he had told the investigation officer that when Mukhtaran reached the Panchayat, Faiza (chief juror), Ramzan Pachaar and Ghulam Fareed ordered that the girl be subjected to ‘ziadti’ (rape).

He said the police did not ask the Mastois that why Shakoor was confined. Even the police did not inquire from Shakoor to know the reason of his confinement, he claimed.

When the defence counsel asked repeatedly about the marital life of the victim and reasons of its failure (she is a divorcee), the judge observed that questions appeared far-fetched having no relevance with the issue.

The PW13 said it was incorrect to suggest that Mukhtaran Mai was divorced by her husband due to “bad character”. He said the reason for her divorce was that her husband was poor, lame and unable to do work and he asked her family (voluntarily) to take her back.

Earlier, special public prosecutor Ramzan Khalid Joiya presented in court official letter of his appointment by the government to plead the prosecution case along with advocates Azra Saeed and Sabiha Hassan Randhawa.

The judge also called Mukhtaran Mai to confirm the team of the state-appointed lawyers to represent her. She reposed her confidence on the team.

During the cross-examination of PW13, defence counsel Malik Saleem and Yaqoob Khan alleged that Maulvi Abdul Razzaq (PW11) had always remained in the office of public prosecutor during court proceedings and tried to influence the witnesses. The defence counsel urged court to summon PW11 again. However, the judge turned down their request.

The prosecution moved an application on Friday to withdraw victim’s father Ghulam Farid, Ghulam Nabi and Haji Manzoor from the list of PWs as their witnesses were now ‘immaterial’. The court will decide the matter on Saturday (today).

The PW13 contradicted his earlier statements recorded with police and the area magistrate during the cross-examination on Friday on at least 12 occasions.