Technical glitch delays DHA double murder indictment again

A sessions judge on Saturday adjourned the indictment of an interned suspect in the DHA double murder case after technical issues emerged in the court’s management system.

A staff member of the court of the additional district & sessions judge (South) inside the Central Jail Karachi said that the suspect Atif Zaman was brought from the prison for the framing of charges but the case could not proceed because of a glitch in the network.

He added that because of the malfunction, the court had to adjourn the hearing until February 9 to indict Atif for the murders of anchorperson Mureed Abbas and Khizar Hayat.

The case has been facing dramatic delays since its beginning, because of which the trial has not been able to start despite a lapse of over one and a half years.

The prosecution claims that Atif, accompanied by his absconding brother Adil Zaman, who has been declared a proclaimed offender, murdered Abbas and Hayat minutes apart in the upmarket DHA neighbourhood on July 9, 2019.

It also claims that both victims were partners in a business with Atif and were demanding their money back because of non-payment of their shares in the profit, which infuriated the accused to commit the murders.

The charge sheet reads that Atif had called Abbas and Hayat to two different places in DHA on the pretext of returning some of the money he owed them, following which the accused first shot Hayat at a traffic signal and then Abbas in an office.

It says that the CCTV camera clips show Adil accompanying Atif during the two murders. Atif was arrested soon after the incident when police raided his flat in the same neighbourhood. He, however, shot himself in the torso before the arrest. He was rushed to a hospital, because of which he survived.

Adil was arrested five months after the incident but was later granted bail by the trial court. After the Supreme Court cancelled the bail, he escaped from the court and is still at large.

The first turn in the case had come in its third week, when Atif was brought in an ambulance to the city courts to record his confession, but he refused to give any and said he would contest the case.

Soon after this, the police recommended that the case be tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act but the anti-terrorism court tasked with the case referred it back to the sessions court, observing that the case did not fall within the ambit of terrorism.

The FIRs of the case were registered at the Darakhshan police station under sections 302 (premeditated murder) and 325 (attempt to commit suicide) of the Pakistan Penal Code as well as Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act.

In the December 19, 2020 hearing, the sessions court had ordered the investigating officer of the case to reissue the advertisement against absconder Adil keeping in view the objections raised by the complainant’s counsel. The additional district & sessions judge (South) also sought a forensic report on the CCTV camera clips held as electronic evidences.

Lawyer Jibran Nasir, who represents the complainant (Abbas’s wife Zara), argued during the hearing that the IO had issue an advertisement along with some points that could benefit the accused on the run.

He also argued that the police had not yet submitted the forensic report on the CCTV camera footage, while any more delay in the matter could dent the prosecution’s case and benefit the accused.

On the judge’s inquiry, the IO replied that the forensic examination of the CCTV camera footage was conducted in Lahore and its report would be submitted in court in the next hearing.

The judge ordered the IO to reissue the advertisement under the rules defined by the law and submit the forensic report on the CCTV camera footage in the next hearing.

In the January 9 hearing, the sessions court had ordered the police to expedite the process to declare the absconding suspect a proclaimed offender, and submit a report on January 19.

The judge had directed the IO to issue an advertisement in leading Urdu and English dailies against Adil. During the hearing, the IO also submitted the forensic report of the CCTV camera footage, which the court accepted and made a part of the case record.