Gul Plaza fire: police file charge sheet against 11-year-old boy, five others

KARACHI: Karachi police have filed a charge-sheet in the Gul Plaza fire case, naming an 11-year-old boy, his father and four office-bearers of the market’s management committee as accused over the blaze that killed 72 people.

The charge sheet, submitted to a court through the prosecution department, said that the January 17 fire was originated from an artificial flower shop after the shopkeeper’s underage son allegedly ignited matchsticks that set combustible material ablaze.

According to sources, the report of the judicial commission constituted to investigate the tragedy has not been made part of the charge sheet and will be submitted separately at a later stage.

The investigating officer (IO) of the Gul Plaza fire case has nominated six people — 11-year-old Huzaifa, his father Naimatullah, who owns the artificial flower shop, Gul Plaza Management Committee President Tanveer Pasta, Vice President Ammar Ismail, General Secretary Muhammad Ameen and Joint Secretary Muhammad Ramazan.

All six have been declared absconders in the charge sheet.

The report stated that the fire claimed 72 lives, left eight people injured and destroyed 1,153 shops. It also noted that the remains of four victims have yet to be claimed by their families.

According to the investigation, the blaze originated from Shop No 193, where Naimatullah allegedly used to leave his underage son in charge of the business.

The IO said that Huzaifa was playing with matchsticks and threw lit matchsticks into artificial flowers, igniting the fire. The report held both the father and the son responsible for negligence and recklessness.

According to the charge sheet, police recorded statements from four eyewitnesses under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before a judicial magistrate.

One of the witnesses, a 13-year-old boy, told investigators he was present inside the shop when Huzaifa was playing with matchsticks shortly before the fire erupted.

Two other eyewitnesses corroborated the account and stated that Naimatullah routinely left the shop in his son’s care.

Call data records also showed that Naimatullah was not present at the shop when the fire broke out, according to the investigation.

The charge sheet further said that the Gul Plaza management committee failed to stop an underage child from operating the shop despite being aware of the practice, terming it a serious act of negligence.

The IO also blamed the management committee for multiple safety failures that contributed to the scale of the tragedy.

The report stated that emergency exits and the building’s main gates remained locked after the fire broke out, preventing occupants from escaping.

It said that the market committee failed to open the gates in time, making evacuation difficult.

The charge sheet further said that there were inadequate fire extinguishers, no functional fire hydrant system and no emergency backup lighting inside the building.

According to the IO, management committee President Tanveer Pasta contacted K-Electric to disconnect electricity after the fire broke out. The ensuing darkness further hampered evacuation efforts and trapped people inside the building.

The report also alleged that members of the management committee failed to immediately alert the fire brigade or other rescue services.

It said that analysis of their call data records showed no calls were made to emergency responders following the outbreak of the fire.

During the investigation, forensic samples collected by a crime scene unit from Lahore were examined at the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, charge sheet said.

It said that the forensic report found no traces of explosive material, confirming that the fire was accidental rather than caused by an explosion.

The IO said in the report that since Huzaifa is a juvenile, the charge sheet against him has been filed before a juvenile court.

The remaining accused have been charge-sheeted under Sections 285 (negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter), 322 (manslaughter), 337-H (hurt caused by rash or negligent act), 436 (mischief by fire) and 34 (common intention) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

The prosecution had earlier returned the charge sheet to the IO, raising objections over procedural deficiencies as well as the absence of the judicial commission’s report. However, the prosecution subsequently allowed the IO to submit the report, observing that the judicial commission’s findings would be filed separately at a later stage.