‘Disappearance of evidence’ added as offence in Hyderabad drowning case
Court rejects plea to book three men under Section 201 of CrPC
Inder Vanit’s parents are still fighting for justice for their son, months after his untimely death. PHOTO: FILE
HYDERABAD:
In the alleged murder case of 11-year-old Inder Vanit Hotwani, a subordinate court has granted the parent’s plea to add the offence of disappearance of evidence in the FIR.
However, the other prayer of booking three persons under the relevant Ssection 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is punishable with a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment, was not accepted as only one was charged.
Denying ‘drowning’ claims, family says boy was raped, murdered
Hotwani died while on a ventilator at a Karachi hospital on April 22, around nine days after he drowned in the swimming pool of Hyderabad Club on April 13. The parent’s alleged that he was raped and murdered but the club’s administration claimed it was a death by drowning of a very new learner.
An FIR against the club was lodged at GOR police station on May 2 under Section 302 of the CrPC on the complaint of the victim’s father, Dr Chetan Das Hotwani. A subsequent police report, based on the inquiry of Special Branch Karachi’s inspector Sirajjuddin Lashari, requested the court replace Section 302 of intentional murder with Section 319 of unintentional murder.
“Evidence available on record clearly revealed that a person namely Umair Shoro working as a computer operator was under obligation to save the CCTV footage of the relevant time and date when the lifeguards were allegedly seen committing negligence in their duty but he caused disappearance of the evidence of offence, which act attracts the penal provision section 201,” read the order given by the court third civil judge and judicial magistrate Wajahat Saeed.
In the same order the court dismissed trial under Section 302, observing that, “that though [an] iota of evidence did not come on record to connect any person with the accusation of Qatl-i-Amd”.
Dr Chetan, who is the petitioner in the case, had prayed to charge the club’s administrator Mushtaq Ahmed and an assistant of Shoro, Kaisar George, as well under Section 201. “We will challenge the court’s order in the Sindh High Court,” told advocate Sajjad Ahmed Chandio, the petitioner’s counsel. “We believe the administrator and Shoro’s assistant are also culpable in the case.”
14-year-old schoolboy commits suicide in Peshawar over marriage refusal
According to the parents, the club is hiding CCTV recordings of that day. “This case involves a barbaric offence in which rape of an 11-year-old minor has been committed and then he was killed and, to save their skin, the culprits ... are causing disappearance of the evidence,” read the plea submitted in the court.
The court also accepted the bail plea of two lifeguards Sajjad Parehar and Nadir Parehar against a surety of Rs50,000 each. Both of them were arrested soon after registration of the FIR and have remained jailed on judicial remand since then.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2016.
In the alleged murder case of 11-year-old Inder Vanit Hotwani, a subordinate court has granted the parent’s plea to add the offence of disappearance of evidence in the FIR.
However, the other prayer of booking three persons under the relevant Ssection 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is punishable with a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment, was not accepted as only one was charged.
Denying ‘drowning’ claims, family says boy was raped, murdered
Hotwani died while on a ventilator at a Karachi hospital on April 22, around nine days after he drowned in the swimming pool of Hyderabad Club on April 13. The parent’s alleged that he was raped and murdered but the club’s administration claimed it was a death by drowning of a very new learner.
An FIR against the club was lodged at GOR police station on May 2 under Section 302 of the CrPC on the complaint of the victim’s father, Dr Chetan Das Hotwani. A subsequent police report, based on the inquiry of Special Branch Karachi’s inspector Sirajjuddin Lashari, requested the court replace Section 302 of intentional murder with Section 319 of unintentional murder.
“Evidence available on record clearly revealed that a person namely Umair Shoro working as a computer operator was under obligation to save the CCTV footage of the relevant time and date when the lifeguards were allegedly seen committing negligence in their duty but he caused disappearance of the evidence of offence, which act attracts the penal provision section 201,” read the order given by the court third civil judge and judicial magistrate Wajahat Saeed.
In the same order the court dismissed trial under Section 302, observing that, “that though [an] iota of evidence did not come on record to connect any person with the accusation of Qatl-i-Amd”.
Dr Chetan, who is the petitioner in the case, had prayed to charge the club’s administrator Mushtaq Ahmed and an assistant of Shoro, Kaisar George, as well under Section 201. “We will challenge the court’s order in the Sindh High Court,” told advocate Sajjad Ahmed Chandio, the petitioner’s counsel. “We believe the administrator and Shoro’s assistant are also culpable in the case.”
14-year-old schoolboy commits suicide in Peshawar over marriage refusal
According to the parents, the club is hiding CCTV recordings of that day. “This case involves a barbaric offence in which rape of an 11-year-old minor has been committed and then he was killed and, to save their skin, the culprits ... are causing disappearance of the evidence,” read the plea submitted in the court.
The court also accepted the bail plea of two lifeguards Sajjad Parehar and Nadir Parehar against a surety of Rs50,000 each. Both of them were arrested soon after registration of the FIR and have remained jailed on judicial remand since then.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 5th, 2016.