Mir Raza case: Judicial commission grills friends over conflicting statements

KARACHI: The judicial commission probing the death of young businessman Mir Raza Ali on Monday questioned apparent inconsistencies in accounts given by his friends and family members, particularly over searches of his room and car, the removal of items from his home and attempts to access data from his Apple Watch.

The judicial commission, headed by Sindh High Court Justice Omar Sial, recorded the statements of Mir Raza’s friends Haisam and Razzaq during Monday’s proceedings.

Mir Raza’s father and sister, as well as Ferozabad SHO Adil Afzal, were also present.

The proceedings assumed particular significance as the commission confronted the witnesses with differences between their accounts and earlier statements regarding the efforts to locate Mir Raza after he went missing.

Justice Sial expressed displeasure over contradictions among the accounts of Mir Raza’s friends, questioning why different versions had emerged about who searched the deceased’s room and car.

Razzaq recalls Mir Raza’s unusual remark

During his testimony, Razzaq said that he worked at a software house and had known Mir Raza since their school days. He said Mir Raza had picked him up from his office on July 27 and dropped him back about an hour later.

According to Razzaq, they had no further contact that day.

He said that he later learnt that Mir Raza was missing after his social media accounts had apparently been deleted.

His friend Silva told him that Mir Raza’s social media accounts were no longer active, prompting him to suggest that he might be at home.

Razzaq said that he subsequently tried calling Mir Raza but could not get through.

He told the commission that he had dinner with Mir Raza on July 28 and that the deceased made an unusual remark during the meal.

“Perhaps this could be my last meal today,” Razzaq recalled Mir Raza as saying.

When asked why Mir Raza had made such a statement, Razzaq said he did not know.

Razzaq said he and Mir Raza had been very close friends and that his efforts after the disappearance were aimed solely at finding evidence that could help locate his friend.

Restaurant receipt points to meeting before death

Razzaq told the commission that he found a restaurant receipt in Mir Raza’s room. According to him, the receipt indicated that Mir Raza had met a person named Ahmed Raja a day before his death.

The testimony raised questions about Mir Raza’s movements shortly before his disappearance and whether the person mentioned on the receipt could provide information relevant to the investigation.

The commission is separately examining Mir Raza’s movements, financial dealings, digital evidence and the handling of physical evidence in the case.

Commission questions searches of room and car

Razzaq said that the idea of searching Mir Raza’s house and car was discussed with Ahmed and that he suggested conducting the search in the presence of Mir Raza’s mother.

He said Ahmed, Abdullah and Waseh were searching the room.

The commission chief, however, expressed strong displeasure over inconsistencies between the statements of the friends.

Justice Sial questioned how three or four friends could provide differing accounts about the same search.

The commission also questioned an account suggesting that searches had been conducted twice, while Razzaq was now saying he was not present when the car was searched.

The commission also questioned Mir Raza’s father over the matter, asking why he would give an incorrect account.

Dispute over Monopoly game

The commission also examined whether items had been removed from Mir Raza’s home after his disappearance.

Razzaq said he and others took a Monopoly game from the house on the following night with his father’s permission.

Mir Raza’s father denied giving permission.

“I did not allow anyone to take anything,” the father told the commission.

Razzaq subsequently said that Haisam had given him the card game and had told him that Mir Raza’s father had allowed it to be taken.

The differing accounts prompted further questions from the commission about what happened inside the house after Mir Raza went missing and who authorised the removal of items.

Apple Watch examined for possible digital evidence

The commission also questioned Razzaq about attempts to open Mir Raza’s Apple Watch.

Razzaq said he had met Mir Raza’s parents and sister only two or three times during his friendship with the deceased.

He said Mir Raza had purchased the game at his request.

Asked why he had asked Mir Raza’s sister to open the Apple Watch, Razzaq said the device could potentially contain location information and other digital evidence.

He said he used technology and therefore asked the sister whether any messages had appeared on the watch.

According to Razzaq, the sister told him that a message had appeared and opened the watch.

The commission asked how he knew the watch’s passcode.

Razzaq said he knew Mir Raza’s “code word” and used it to open the device.

He explained that if the watch had been synchronised with Mir Raza’s phone, they might have been able to retrieve information such as email or WhatsApp data. However, he said the phone was not linked to the watch.

The commission has previously examined questions surrounding digital evidence and access to Mir Raza’s devices. The handling of such evidence has been one of the broader issues raised during the proceedings.

Crypto trading and financial dealings discussed

Razzaq also told the commission that he had stopped trading in cryptocurrency after suffering losses, although Mir Raza continued to deal in cryptocurrency.

He said Mir Raza had spoken about making another investment of around Rs1 million in cryptocurrency but had not told him whether the money had actually been received.

Razzaq also mentioned a person named Mujtaba, whom he said used to advise Mir Raza on cryptocurrency trading. He said he first met Mujtaba at Ferozabad police station.

According to Razzaq, Mir Raza routinely discussed his profits and losses with his friends.

He said Mir Raza had not mentioned any serious business or financial difficulties even up to a day before his death.

Asked whether there had been any dispute or heated argument between Mir Raza and Ahmed, Razzaq said he was unaware of any such disagreement.

He also described Mir Raza as someone who was not prone to fighting or quarrelling.

Haisam gives account of last contact

According to the latest Monday proceedings, his another fiend Haisam told the commission that he worked at a software house and had been Mir Raza’s school friend since 2014.

Haisam said his last physical meeting with Mir Raza was at Paddle Court at around 3am on July 27. He said he later spoke to Mir Raza through a video call at around 1am on July 28.

Haisam said he learnt that Mir Raza was missing after receiving a worried call from Silva, who asked where he was.

He then contacted Razzaq, who told him that he had dropped Mir Raza at his office.

Haisam said he subsequently called Mir Raza’s mother and asked her to check whether he was in his room. After she confirmed that he was not there and that his car was still parked outside, Haisam said he and Razzaq began searching for him.

However, Haisam denied entering Mir Raza’s room or searching his car.

He told the commission that he did not know why his name had been mentioned as one of the people involved in the room search, saying he was outside the house at the time. He also denied searching the car.

Commission questions police investigation

The proceedings also turned to the conduct of the police investigation.

Justice Sial questioned why several of the questions being raised before the commission had apparently not been asked by the investigating officer.

The commission questioned what investigating officer DSP Siraj Lashari had done during the investigation and sought details of the statements recorded from witnesses.

Razzaq said his statement had been recorded several times, while one session with DSP Lashari lasted around two hours.

When asked where copies of his statements were, Razzaq said he did not know that witnesses could obtain copies.

The commission expressed concern over the failure to provide copies of police statements to witnesses.

Justice Sial directed the additional home secretary to inform the Sindh Inspector General of Police and the provincial home minister about the issue and said the matter should also be brought to their attention.

The commission further directed DIG Aamir Farooqui to submit a written explanation through the focal person regarding the non-provision of copies of witnesses’ statements.

The judicial commission questioned the police officer over the handling of the crime scene, asking why the Crime Scene Unit was not informed after the body was found and why no memo or case diary was prepared.

During the proceedings, the commission asked the officer whether he had informed the Crime Scene Unit after the body was recovered.

“No, I did not inform them,” the officer replied.

The commission chairman, Justice Omar Sial, questioned the officer’s decision, asking whether he believed it was proper not to prepare a memo or inform the Crime Scene Unit after a body was found.

“Don’t you think this was a wrong thing to do?” Justice Sial asked.

The officer said he had immediately informed the Station House Officer (SHO) and Investigation Officer (IO) of Ferozabad police station.

He maintained that officials from the police station within whose jurisdiction the body was found had reached the scene.

The officer also said it was a routine practice for police personnel from one station to assist another when an incident occurred within its jurisdiction.

CCTV footage questioned

The commission also questioned the officer about his role in obtaining CCTV footage from the area.

Asked what assistance he had provided after the relevant police station reached the scene, the officer said they were present only to assist and had nothing to do with the CCTV footage.

He said he had initially seen CCTV footage from a guest house in the area, but teams from Ferozabad police station arrived shortly afterwards.

Justice Sial questioned the officer about the circumstances under which he had started an investigation and whether he had made any entry in the daily police diary.

The officer replied that he had not made any such entry.

The commission chairman subsequently directed the additional home secretary to obtain and submit the daily diary records of both Ferozabad and Gulistan-e-Jauhar police stations after sealing them.

Commission questions alleged guest house activities

Justice Sial also questioned the officer about the guest houses in the area and whether he was aware of alleged illegal activities taking place there.

The commission chairman became visibly angry during the questioning and accused the officer of concealing information, asking him how much money he was receiving from the guest houses and telling him that he was lying.

The officer maintained his position regarding his involvement in the investigation and the CCTV footage.

Authority to investigate questioned

The commission also asked the officer under whose authority he had initiated an investigation and whether he had prepared a daily diary entry.

He replied that he had not prepared one.

The commission further asked whether he had the authority to follow directions issued by the Ferozabad SHO.

The officer replied in the negative.

Justice Sial then questioned whether the officer was aware that he had violated the law.

The commission also questioned the removal and handling of a digital video recorder (DVR) and sought to know who had taken the CCTV footage.

The chairman asked whether the officer had personally seen Mir Raza’s body.

The officer replied that he had not seen the body himself but had seen photographs of it.

Asked whether the photographs suggested that Mir Raza had died by suicide, the officer said the images showed both angles.

Missing-person alert

The commission also asked whether the officer’s police station had received information through the Maloom App that Mir Raza was missing.

The officer said details were circulated in a group, but the information had not come to his attention.

The commission was also told that Masjid Khizra falls within the jurisdiction of Gulistan-e-Jauhar police station.

The officer further acknowledged that he had not prepared a case diary in connection with the matter.

The questioning forms part of the commission’s wider examination of the police investigation, including the handling of the crime scene, CCTV footage, police records and the sequence of events following the discovery of Mir Raza’s body.

Earlier proceedings raised questions over police handling

The latest questioning follows several contentious hearings of the commission.

On September 3, the commission questioned Mir Raza’s business partners, an online taxi driver and DSP Arshad Afridi.

During that hearing, Afridi initially denied telling the family that Mir Raza’s death was a suicide and denied showing them CCTV footage, but later acknowledged that the family had been shown the footage after persistent questioning. Justice Sial remarked that the officer was taking the commission from concerns over his suspension towards the possibility of dismissal.

The commission also heard from vendor Abdullah Bharde, who said he supplied chocolate to Mir Raza’s Wafflix business and was owed Rs750,000 in connection with cryptocurrency trading. He said he last spoke to Mir Raza at around 2:30am on July 28.

On September 4, the commission’s written order stated that Bykea driver Ehsanullah was not a suspect and had fully cooperated with Mir Raza’s family in their efforts to locate him. The commission expressed concern that the driver appeared to have been punished for helping the family, after he said he had lost access to his vehicle and had been evicted from his accommodation.

The commission directed the investigating officer to contact the company and the landlord and reassure them that no coercive action would be taken against Ehsanullah merely because he was part of the investigation.

Police officers summoned

The commission had also summoned Gulistan-e-Jauhar SHO Kamran Qureshi and head clerk Zeeshan to appear on Monday and provide information and records concerning the case. The summons were issued because Mir Raza’s body was recovered within the jurisdiction of Gulistan-e-Jauhar police station.

Suspended SHO recounts events surrounding recovery of Mir Raza’s body

Suspended and reverted Gulistan-e-Jauhar SHO Kamran Qureshi on Monday told the judicial commission investigating the death of Mir Raza that he was informed about the recovery of a body at around 12:39pm on July 29.

Appearing before the commission headed by Sindh High Court Justice Omar Sial, Qureshi said he was initially investigating information regarding a robbery involving Rs40 million at a house.

He said ASI Azhar informed him that he was present at Nursery and also sent photographs of the recovered body.

“I asked him to share photographs of the front as well,” Qureshi told the commission.

He said the police subsequently contacted the relevant identification service to obtain fingerprints to establish the identity of the deceased.

Qureshi said he received information at around 1:30pm that a dispute was taking place at a guest house, prompting him to reach the location.

According to the SHO, ASI Azhar told him that some people had arrived at the guest house claiming that their child was missing.

Qureshi said he asked the people at the guest house to cooperate with the police. Azhar then showed them photographs of the unidentified body.

“The family identified him from his clothes,” Qureshi told the commission.

He added that he subsequently contacted the SHO of Ferozabad police station and informed him about the identification.

The commission had earlier deferred the statements of Haisam, Razzaq and Ferozabad SHO Adil Afzal because of a shortage of time, fixing them for the September 7 hearing.

Kamran Qureshi’s statement was completed during Monday’s hearing of the judicial commission investigating Mir Raza’s death.

The hearing was adjourned until Tuesday. Notices were also issued to Ferozabad SHO Dr Summaiya Syed Tariq, Dr Naseem and other relevant officials.

Background

Mir Raza Ali, a young Karachi businessman and owner of dessert outlet Wafflix, went missing on July 28 and was subsequently found dead in Gulistan-e-Jauhar. His family rejected the initial suggestion that his death was a suicide and raised questions about the crime scene, post-mortem, forensic evidence, CCTV footage and the police investigation.

A judicial commission headed by Justice Omar Sial was subsequently constituted to examine the circumstances surrounding his death, the conduct of the investigation and any possible negligence or shortcomings by relevant officials.

The commission has already heard from Mir Raza’s family members, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, police officials, rescue volunteers, business associates and other witnesses.

The Sindh High Court also rejected the family’s request for the formation of a joint investigation team, observing that the constitution of a JIT was the government’s prerogative and declining to interfere with or supervise the ongoing criminal investigation.

The commission’s Monday proceedings are significant because the testimony of Mir Raza’s close friends has brought into sharper focus discrepancies over the search of his home and car, access to his digital devices, the removal of belongings and his movements and conversations shortly before his death. However, the testimony and questioning remain part of an ongoing inquiry, and the commission has yet to reach any final conclusion about the circumstances of Mir Raza’s death.