KARACHI:
It is 8:50 am on Wednesday. Prison vans and box-like armed personnel carriers (APCs) trundle in to the parking lot of Anti-Terrorism Court I. It is a usual enough day; the police are bringing and taking away suspects for their hearings. But for the seven men standing trial on charges of killing 22-year-old Sarfraz Shah, there is no early morning breeze. They stay in their APC with the door open but a short while later the police shut them in again.
According to police officers accompanying the APC, the men talk about the trial while they are seated inside. "They talk about who [could] be acquitted."
"They obviously have regrets," remarked one officer. "But the footage shown on television channels is edited; the full video shows how the events unfolded."
Court officers have grown used to the media circus surrounding this trial, which is being closely followed nationally, and especially by the people of crime-riddled Karachi. Its residents are no strangers to violence but this alleged extrajudicial killing rattled even the most steely of souls.
As the hours laboriously tick by, the police send out men to get ice for their water cooler and sit in the emptied prison van for a respite from the heat. The lawyers file in. They backslap court reporters, drink sugary cups of tea and exchange notes on other lawyers and cases. The judge makes a brief appearance on the veranda. There has been no electricity since around 8 am and court staff consult each other on alternative arrangements.
Elsewhere there is a heated debate on the court's history. "Kalsoom Nawaz used to hand out Rs1,000 notes when Nawaz Sharif was on trial here," claims one man.
"No she didn't," exclaims the other. "You have no idea what you are talking about."
As 11 am approaches, reporters hurriedly grab the coveted chairs with torn rexine covers. Those who arrive late, stand on the sidelines, waiting for a magnanimous reporter to offer to swap places.
The court's naib qasid watches over everyone like a hawk for cell phones, strictly banned from the courtroom. He hisses at a police officer checking his cell phone, and tries to remove a reporter who forgot to turn off his phone's ringer.
Finally, the men of the moment shuffle in chained to each other literally and figuratively for the course of the trial. These are the same men who were immortalised in footage broadcast ad nauseam on every television channel. But off screen there is none of the bluster viewers have come to associate with the men in uniform when they allegedly killed Shah.
The sole non-Rangers suspect, Afsar Khan, who is wearing a prayer cap, sneezes several times during the proceedings. He manages to manoeuvre his handcuffs so that he can wipe his nose with his kameez. Another pale-faced suspect mutters constantly under his breath.
They all look up as the lawyers — four for the defence and one special public prosecutor — begin talking.
Courtroom proceedings
The SHO of Boat Basin police station was the first man in the witness box. Naseer Tanoli spoke in soft, hurried tones, prompting ATC I's Judge Bashir Ahmad Khoso to ask him to slow down so notes could be taken.
Under questioning from prosecutor Mohammad Khan Buriro, Tanoli testifies that at 6:40 pm on June 8, he was on patrolling duty when he received a phone call from SI Zulfiqar. "A man has been severely injured at Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Park," he was told. Tanoli said his first priority was to see the man, so he rushed to the park, where a crowd had amassed. They confirmed the same thing - that the man was injured as he had been shot. "I went to Jinnah hospital where I met investigating officer (IO) Javed. He said that the injured man had died during treatment."
Tanoli then received a phone call from DSP Rangers Ali, who asked him to come to the Rangers headquarters. When he went there, Tanoli met DSP Rangers Ali and SI Baha-ur Rahman, who handed over Sarfraz Shah's "personal effects" - a gun, three bullets, one empty, one magazine, a cell phone, a wallet and Rs750.
A letter of receipt was signed. Tanoli was told that Shah had fired at the Rangers. The SHO was asked to take Afsar Khan to the police station to lodge an FIR. Tanoli headed back to the station, gave SI Zulfiqar the items and told him to lodge the FIR and take Khan's statement.
The defence lawyers then rose, one by one, to cross-examine Tanoli. First up was Shaukat Hayat, who is representing Shahid Zafar and Mohammad Afzal. Hayat stressed an earlier allegation - that Sarfraz Shah was robbing families in the park. Tanoli began with a series of 'I don't knows' and 'I don't remembers' that lasted till the end of his testimony, prompting defence lawyer Naimutallah Randhawa to ask, "Do you [at least] remember what you ate for breakfast this morning?"
The other lawyers repeatedly asked when Tanoli had learnt who had been designated as an investigating officer, when he returned to the police station, how much time he spent at Jinnah hospital. Lawyers made much of the fact that none of Tanoli's actions - his visit to the Rangers HQ or the park - were recorded in the daily log at the police station. He was asked if he was aware of the duties of a station house officer and the exact details of what his investigating officers had told him. As the defence started asking pointed questions, Tanoli showed his first signs of annoyance. "I will only answer questions that are related to the case," he remarked.
Tanoli was asked why he did not register an FIR on his own when, on his visit to the park, he realised that a cognisable offence had been committed.
Defence lawyer Aamir Warraich, who is representing Afsar Khan, and Randhawa were the most hostile of the four black coats. Warraich, who claimed that Tanoli was lying in his deposition, accused the SHO of asking the family that Shah had "robbed" to leave the park. "Because of your negligence, the family left the park and you did not register the FIR," he said.
Warraich then attempted to paint Shah's personal effects as fakes, "foisted by Tanoli on the dead Sarfraz Shah" - a remark that even the judge appeared puzzled by. Warraich asked if the receiving letter was "not just a simple printout that could be obtained from any printer". "Is this a fabricated letter?" he pressed.
Warraich loudly asked why Shah's wallet "was not mentioned in Tanoli's initial statement recorded before the deputy inspector-general" and if the police accompanying Tanoli had been asked to leave before Tanoli went to the Rangers HQ. Tanoli denied Warraich's allegations and scurried from the witness box as soon as questioning was over.
The suspects listened to the testimony with vacant stares. A suspect briefly talked to a police officer sitting next to him, but clammed up when he realised he was attracting attention.
The real fireworks came when the next witness - Gulnaz Miandad - was presented. The defence flew into an uproar, claiming that they had been told investigating officer Faqir Dad was scheduled to testify. Miandad, a resident of Hijrat Colony, was called on to testify about how she had been "terrorised" by the killing, the assistant defence prosecutor hurriedly whispered to reporters.
Objections over Miandad's "unscheduled" appearance turned into a war of words between the prosecution and defence lawyers. For its part, the prosecution alleged that "these people sell their conscience for money" and "if his own son had died, then he would have known". A defence lawyer reportedly retorted with "I'll see you outside" before the judge called for order and allowed Gulnaz Miandad to record her statement.
As Gulnaz Miandad cried over how her children had been traumatised after watching the video aired on SAMAA TV, the defense objected to "hearsay" testimony. After the judge declined to note the objection, Miandad continued, saying, "My children are scared of going outside; they are scared of Rangers and police officers. The police was offering children biscuits the other day and they refused to take them. My own brother is in the army but now we fear him too. If they killed this child, how are our own children safe?"
The proceedings will resume 11 am on Thursday.
Back to the APC
As the shackled suspects shuffled out to their waiting APC, lawyers briefly whispered to their clients. There was no media circus awaiting them, as defence lawyers agreed not to issue statements, since the prosecution had also been barred from doing so on Monday.
It was a dramatic day in court, but court reporters appear to have tired of the trial already, having covered the case's proceedings in the high court and now at the anti-terrorism court. But as one seasoned defence lawyer remarked before the proceedings began, "Every case is exciting".
Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2011.
COMMENTS (4)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ