Summary Judicial Commission questions police over CCTV gaps, witness statements, digital evidence, crime-scene handling and alleged procedural irregularities in Mir Raza case.
KARACHI (Web Desk) - The Judicial Commission probing the death of Mir Raza has raised serious questions over alleged flaws in the police investigation, including CCTV footage, geofencing, witness statements and digital evidence.
During proceedings, Commission head Justice Umar Sial questioned the role of the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee (CPLC), which provided call detail records (CDRs), geofencing data and other investigative assistance. The commission was informed that geofencing began on July 28-29 and that Mir Raza’s phone showed activity until around 4:25am, while Apple Maps was accessed between 4:10am and 4:20am.
The commission also questioned why suspicious vehicles identified through geofencing could not be clearly traced through CCTV footage. CPLC officials said cameras in Gulistan-e-Johar covered parts of the area, but Mir Raza appeared on only three cameras and much of the footage was of insufficient quality.
Proceedings also focused on reports that five hours of CCTV footage from Masjid Khizra were missing. The CPLC representative said it did not have cameras at the mosque, while technicians had managed to retrieve some old-system footage.
The commission questioned Investigation Officer DSP Siraj Lashari over witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It observed that several witnesses had denied major portions of the statements attributed to them and alleged that they had not been properly shown or read their statements.
The commission also raised questions about the role of Ali Shahaz, his travel abroad, his brother’s presence in Karachi and alleged links involving police officers. Investigators maintained that all aspects were being examined and that no connection between Shahaz and the incident had been established.
Serious concerns were further raised over the handling of the crime scene. The commission said the scene had been “ruined” by the presence of dozens of police officers and questioned whether proper legal procedures had been followed. It also sought details of CCTV footage obtained from various locations and sent for forensic examination.
The commission criticized the police for procedural irregularities, including the recording of footage on mobile phones and the handling of a guest house DVR. It also questioned why statements of police officers involved in the investigation had allegedly not been recorded under Section 161.
The commission said it would mention the police’s alleged lack of cooperation and other irregularities in its recommendations.
