Discrepancies emerge in Mir Raza autopsy as ‘missing’ details surface in judicial commission hearing

Police surgeon tells panel that several important details omitted, bullet’s entry and exit wounds do not correspond

KARACHI:

Serious discrepancies in the post-mortem of Mir Raza emerged before the judicial commission probing his death on Tuesday, with Police Surgeon Dr Summaiya Syed telling the panel that several important details had been omitted from the report and that the bullet’s entry and exit wounds did not correspond.

The proceedings were abruptly adjourned after Sindh Advocate General (AG) Javed Dero intervened while counsel for Raza’s family, lawyer Jibran Nasir, was questioning Dr Summaiya.

Justice Umar Sial of the Sindh High Court, who headed the commission, expressed strong displeasure over the intervention and ordered a notice to Sindh Home Minister Ziaul Hassan Lanjar to appear before the commission at 9am on Thursday.

The investigating officer submitted the post-mortem report, forensic reports of Raza’s mobile phone and smartwatch, and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Read: Raza's chehlum held as family vows to fight on

Dr Summaiya was summoned along with Professor Naseem Ahmed, head of the medical board. She explained that bodies were identified through fingerprints, facial features or biometric verification, while DNA samples were collected in cases involving unidentified bodies. Photographs of bodies were also taken following a high court decision.

A medico-legal certificate was issued as the first step, she said, while police documents under Section 174 of the CrPC were required before a post-mortem could be conducted. A post-mortem proforma was prepared in 2021, while the Sindh Medico-Legal Act 2023 required DNA samples to be collected from unidentified bodies.

Dr Summaiya said the final report was issued after chemical examination.

Justice Sial questioned her about Dr Usama’s statement that a sweeper had assisted him during Raza’s post-mortem. She rejected the claim, saying the person present was laboratory assistant Shoaib Rashid, who had been trained to assist in post-mortems.

She said Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC) conducted between 15 and 18 post-mortems daily, making it impossible for her to attend every case. However, she personally supervised high-profile and suspicious cases. The department had 42 medico-legal officers, and its main problem was not a shortage of staff but a lack of interest among some officers, despite training and established protocols.

The hearing took a significant turn when she was questioned about her communications with Dr Usama.

Dr Summaiya said she had transcripts of their conversations and spoke to him at 5:46pm on July 29. He told her that a two-day-old body had arrived from Jauhar. She asked about the identification, case history and bullet wounds, after which he sent her photographs of the post-mortem register in pieces. At 2pm on July 30, she asked him about the bullet’s exit wound. She also messaged East Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Dr Farrukh Lanjar about her observations but received no response.

She later held detailed conversations with Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Zubair Nazir and Samiullah Soomro and met the officers concerned on August 5.

Dr Summaiya said Dr Usama initially told her that the bullet had entered through the chest and exited through the back. However, when she requested a photograph of the exit wound, he said he did not have one.

On July 31, after repeated requests for evidence of the exit wound, Dr Usama sent her a crime-scene photograph. When asked about its source, he allegedly told her that he had obtained it by paying a bribe to someone. Dr Summaiya said the photograph clearly showed a mark on the back.

She further said she learned on August 1 that the post-mortem report had been submitted. She informed Dr Usama that several important points had been omitted and asked him to meet her after the holiday so the omissions could be corrected. She also pointed out that the bullet’s entry and exit wounds did not correspond. Dr Usama later said he had made a note “for safety”.

She said the report had never been sent to her and Dr Usama had finalised it himself, leaving her with no option but to forward it.

Dr Summaiya said Dr Usama later admitted he was nervous and would preserve the reasons for his findings in future. She told him the issue was not preserving reasons but “overconfidence”.

The commission also questioned Dr Summaiya about the condition of the body. She said it was decomposed but that its condition had not been properly documented.

Justice Sial noted that the report stated samples had been handed over to police official Nadeem Mughal. Dr Summaiya said samples were preserved separately and delays in examination could increase the risk of losing evidence, particularly in high-profile cases.

The proceedings became heated when the family’s counsel continued questioning Dr Summaiya.

Firsr Sindh Govt denied JIT request of #MirRaza's family & presented Judicial Commission as the only viable solution. Now when conduct of Senior Police Officials is coming under scrutiny before the Commission, AG Sindh office deemed it fit to interrupt proceedings. Deplorable! pic.twitter.com/BvoIM2NNg4

— M. Jibran Nasir 🇵🇸 (@MJibranNasir) September 8, 2026

Sindh AG Dero objected, saying questions should be asked by the commission rather than the family’s counsel.

Justice Sial reacted sharply, “If the family wants to ask questions, what objection does the government have? Are you trying to hide something?”

After Dero apologised, Justice Sial said he did not like the intervention and asked whether Dero had come to dictate to the commission. “I cannot continue the commission proceedings in this manner,” the judge said before ordering a notice to summon the home minister.

The commission subsequently adjourned the proceedings and formally directed Lanjar to appear before it at 9am on Thursday.

Case developments

A judicial commission was formed at the request of the Sindh government to probe the death of Raza, who was allegedly kidnapped from PECHS before his body was found in bushes near a wedding hall in Karachi's Gulistan-e-Johar on July 29. The case had initially been surrounded by uncertainty over whether he had been murdered or had died by suicide. The first post-mortem findings contained discrepancies and omissions, leading to a second post-mortem that confirmed his murder. Consequently, considering the probe "botched", the family filed a petition in the SHC seeking the formation of JIT.

During earlier hearings regarding the formation of JIT, the investigating officer probing the death of Raza told the SHC that investigators were treating the case as murder and had ruled out suicide based on the post-mortem findings. DSP Siraj Lashari said the investigation had restarted “from zero” on August 13 and was being conducted using digital evidence, including CCTV footage. Investigators had recovered a bullet casing but had yet to find the weapon, while final post-mortem and forensic reports were still awaited.

Separately, the judicial commission convened its second hearing on Monday, September 1, wherein it grilled Medico-Legal Officer (MLO) Dr Usama Sheikh over discrepancies in the first post-mortem report filed by him. The commission also recorded the statements of the victim's family and Edhi volunteers who shifted his body during the hearing. After the conclusion of the second hearing, Nasir said the first account of the MLO proved that he was correct about the "botched probe" and, since the commission is not tasked with the probe and can only oversee it, he reiterated that a JIT was crucial for a transparent investigation into the case.

In the hearing convened by the commission on Thursday, the commission noted that Raza's business partner Ahmed Bhurdey gave out unnecessary details that suggested his involvement in the murder rather than absolving him of the crime. It suggested that Bhurdey was worried about Raza's financial backlog more than he cared about what happened to his childhood friend. The commission also grilled the SDPO Arshad Afridi for suggesting that Raza committed suicide after showing the CCTV footage to the family.

Read More: Judicial commission questions Mir Raza Ali's business partner over irregularities

The commission probing the case on Friday summoned Gulistan-e-Jauhar Station House Officer (SHO) Kamran Qureshi and head clerk Zeeshan to appear before it on September 7.

According to the written order issued by the commission, Ehsanullah told the judge that the company had taken back the vehicle provided to him, while the landlord of the house where he had been residing had also evicted him. He said he was now staying at the Ferozabad police station.

The commission directed the investigating officer, DSP Siraj Lashari, to contact the company management and the landlord and address their concerns. It further directed him to assure them that no coercive action would be taken against them in connection with the case.

The commission observed that Ehsanullah was not a suspect in the case and had fully cooperated with Ali’s family during their search for him. He had provided details of his rides and submitted a location map and other ride-related information to the commission.

The commission said that instead of being rewarded for assisting the family, Ehsanullah appeared to be treated like a suspect and was seemingly facing punishment for helping them.