HYDERABAD: In the aftermath of a villager’s murder, Hyderabad police DIG Khadim Rind on Tuesday submitted an interim report before a division bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) in respect of likely registration of an FIR against six policemen.

The bench, comprising Justice Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh and Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio, adjourned the case to Aug 1 and copy of the interim report was provided to the petitioners’ counsel. The policemen are represented by Riazat Ali Sehar advocate while Aftab Chang, the deceased villager’s brother, was represented by Ghulamullah Chang advocate.

The DIG’s report was submitted in response to a June 15 order passed by an SHC division bench, directing him to conduct an inquiry into the incident and submit a report within two weeks. The bench had also restrained Hatri police from registering FIR against six policemen following killing of the villager, Wali Mohammad Chang, in an encounter with Phulelli police on June 8.

The division bench, comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Yousuf Ali Saeed, passed the June 15 restraining order on a joint petition, filed by CIA DSP Mohammad Aslam Langah, Phulelli police station sub-inspector and SHO Rana Pervaiz Akhtar, Inspector Ghulam Raza Mari of CIA Centre Hyderabad, Pinyari police station Sub-Inspector and SHO Mumtaz Brohi, Hatri police station ASI Mohammad Ali Korai and ASI Ghulam Nabi Panhwar of the CIA Centre.

On June 13, an additional sessions judge-V had ordered Hatri police to register FIR of the complainant, Aftab Ahmed, deceased’s brother, verbatim. The complainant wanted to register FIR against those policemen for the death of his brother in a controversial police encounter in Phulelli area.

The DIG submitted in his interim report that he had formed a committee headed by Thatta SSP Fida Hussain Mastoi, DSP Juma Khan Panhwar and Inspector Mohammad Raheem Khoso. He said the team had recorded statements of relevant persons and had given its interim report, but the committee sought 15 days to complete the inquiry and submit it before the court.

The DIG has also attached an interim report of the Thatta SSP-led committee. According to the SSP’s report, police also recorded statements of four independent witnesses, including Abdul Rasheed Qureshi, Haji Niaz Qureshi, Sikandar Shah and Mohammad Umar. The witnesses deposed that they heard about the encounter between police and dacoits, but they had not seen the arrest of Wali Mohammad from Hala Naka.

The SSP mentioned that statements of victim’s son Asadullah Chang, Zafar Chang (a local notable), Wali’s relatives Niaz Chang and Abdul Majeed, and deceased’s brother Aftab Chang were recorded.

Zafar Chang said he was informed on June 18 that Wali Mohammad Chang had been arrested from Hala Naka by ASI Mohammad Ali Korai of the Hatri police station.

Zafar requested Kashif Shoro to contact the police authorities to get him released. Kashif informed him (Zafar) that he had contacted DSP Aslam Langah who said that Wali was interrogated and that he would be released soon. But at 11pm, it came to be known that police had killed Wali in an encounter. The SSP said the statement of Kashif Shoro (chairman of the Municipal Committee of Qasimabad) could not be recorded because he had proceeded to perform Umrah.

The committee also collected the criminal record of the deceased and his family members according to which two cases were lodged against Goga aka Feroz Chang, Amin Chang, Mohammad Deen Chang, Shahzaman Chang, Nisar Chang, Khadim Hussain Chang, Mansoor, Rawal Chang, Aqeel Chang, Irshad aka Asif Chang, Hashim Chang, Babar Chang, Zahid Chang, Saddam Chang, Auan Chang and Ramzan Chang.

It said that nine cases were lodged against Wali Mohammad Chang and he was a proclaimed offender in a case of Cantonment police station lodged vide crime No. 128/11.

The SSP stated that in view of the above facts and circumstances, there was a criminal record against the deceased and he was also a proclaimed offender in one of the cases. The inquiry could not be completed for want of Kashif Shoro’s statement, therefore two weeks’ time might be allowed to record the statement and collect further evidence, he added.

Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2017