Shahzeb Khan case: Witnesses deny they saw Shahrukh Jatoi
Both witnesses had earlier told the police they saw Shahrukh, the Talpurs and their servant fighting Shahzeb.
File photo of Shahrukh Jatoi. PHOTO: PPI
KARACHI:
Two witnesses in Shahzeb Khan’s murder trial retracted from their statements and denied that they saw the prime suspect, Shahrukh Jatoi, on the day of the murder.
As the anti-terrorism court judge Ghulam Mustafa Memon took up the case on Monday, the two witnesses changed their accounts even though they had both given different stories in front of the police earlier. However, the newly appointed special public prosecutor in this case failed to point out during the hearing that the witnesses had deviated from their statements.
On December 25, 2012, the deceased Shahzeb had an argument with his neighbour Siraj Talpur and his friend Shahrukh Jatoi, when Talpur’s servant, Ghulam Murtaza Lashari, acted inappropriately with Shahzeb’s sister. The witnesses, who testified on Monday, are residents of Country Club Apartments in DHA, where the argument began. They also told the court that they did not witness the shooting.
In his statement at the court, the first witness said that he was coming down from his apartment to play cricket on the night of the incident and there was no electricity in the building. He saw DSP Aurangzeb telling his son, Shahzeb, to go away.
“Shahzeb went to his car and those who were fighting with him went after him,” he told the court. When the lawyer asked him to identify who Shahzeb was fighting him, he replied that, “I couldn’t see them because there was no electricity.” He denied seeing who went after Shahzeb’s car as well.
In a previous statement to the police, the same witness said that when he was on his way down to play cricket, he saw Shahrukh, Siraj and Sajjad Talpur, and their servant Lashari fighting with Shahzeb. DSP Aurangzeb was asking his son to apologise and end the fight, he had claimed, adding that Shahrukh and his friends refused to accept the apology and took out a pistol.
DSP Aurangzeb asked his son to leave as Shahrukh kept threatening him and shot in the air. He then followed Shahzeb to his car, he said. “A few minutes later, we were told that Shahzeb has been shot dead,” he told the police.
In a similar manner, the second witness too deviated from the statement he made to the police earlier. He told the court that he was walking outside the apartments when he heard uproar. “When I reached, a fight was going on, and before long Shahzeb’s father settled the issue and sent his son away in a car.” Those who were fighting with him also went after him, he added. “Around 10 to 15 minutes later, we were told that Shahzeb was shot and injured and was being rushed to Ziauddin hospital.” The defence counsel asked him if those who were fighting Shahzeb present in the court, but the witness replied: “No, they aren’t.”
In his earlier statement to the police, the second witness admitted that the person fighting Shahzeb had identified himself as “Shahrukh Jatoi, the son of Sikandar Jatoi”. Siraj, Sajjad and Ghulam Murtaza were beating Shahzeb while his father was trying to resolve the issue, he claimed. Even the second witness had earlier claimed that Shahrukh shot in the air. When Shahzeb’s father asked him to leave, they chased after him, he added.
Sub-inspector Nasrullah, who was a witness to several memos, also appeared before the court and accepted that he was a witness of the memo of the arrest, seizure and place of incident. He accepted that the Mashahirnamas bore his signatures. The hearing was adjourned till Tuesday.
Prosecutor says witnesses deviated
Sindh general prosecutor was outraged when he found out that the prosecutor failed to point out that the witnessed turned hostile. As per procedure, the prosecutor has to make it clear before the judge that the witnesses are deviating from their statements.
After his angry statement, the special prosecutor submitted an application saying that the witnesses gave false statements and deviated from their earlier stance. He requested the court to take action against the witnesses and provide him an opportunity to cross-examine them. The court issued notices to the defence counsel to submit a reply on Tuesday (today).
Published in The Express Tribune, March 26th, 2013.
Two witnesses in Shahzeb Khan’s murder trial retracted from their statements and denied that they saw the prime suspect, Shahrukh Jatoi, on the day of the murder.
As the anti-terrorism court judge Ghulam Mustafa Memon took up the case on Monday, the two witnesses changed their accounts even though they had both given different stories in front of the police earlier. However, the newly appointed special public prosecutor in this case failed to point out during the hearing that the witnesses had deviated from their statements.
On December 25, 2012, the deceased Shahzeb had an argument with his neighbour Siraj Talpur and his friend Shahrukh Jatoi, when Talpur’s servant, Ghulam Murtaza Lashari, acted inappropriately with Shahzeb’s sister. The witnesses, who testified on Monday, are residents of Country Club Apartments in DHA, where the argument began. They also told the court that they did not witness the shooting.
In his statement at the court, the first witness said that he was coming down from his apartment to play cricket on the night of the incident and there was no electricity in the building. He saw DSP Aurangzeb telling his son, Shahzeb, to go away.
“Shahzeb went to his car and those who were fighting with him went after him,” he told the court. When the lawyer asked him to identify who Shahzeb was fighting him, he replied that, “I couldn’t see them because there was no electricity.” He denied seeing who went after Shahzeb’s car as well.
In a previous statement to the police, the same witness said that when he was on his way down to play cricket, he saw Shahrukh, Siraj and Sajjad Talpur, and their servant Lashari fighting with Shahzeb. DSP Aurangzeb was asking his son to apologise and end the fight, he had claimed, adding that Shahrukh and his friends refused to accept the apology and took out a pistol.
DSP Aurangzeb asked his son to leave as Shahrukh kept threatening him and shot in the air. He then followed Shahzeb to his car, he said. “A few minutes later, we were told that Shahzeb has been shot dead,” he told the police.
In a similar manner, the second witness too deviated from the statement he made to the police earlier. He told the court that he was walking outside the apartments when he heard uproar. “When I reached, a fight was going on, and before long Shahzeb’s father settled the issue and sent his son away in a car.” Those who were fighting with him also went after him, he added. “Around 10 to 15 minutes later, we were told that Shahzeb was shot and injured and was being rushed to Ziauddin hospital.” The defence counsel asked him if those who were fighting Shahzeb present in the court, but the witness replied: “No, they aren’t.”
In his earlier statement to the police, the second witness admitted that the person fighting Shahzeb had identified himself as “Shahrukh Jatoi, the son of Sikandar Jatoi”. Siraj, Sajjad and Ghulam Murtaza were beating Shahzeb while his father was trying to resolve the issue, he claimed. Even the second witness had earlier claimed that Shahrukh shot in the air. When Shahzeb’s father asked him to leave, they chased after him, he added.
Sub-inspector Nasrullah, who was a witness to several memos, also appeared before the court and accepted that he was a witness of the memo of the arrest, seizure and place of incident. He accepted that the Mashahirnamas bore his signatures. The hearing was adjourned till Tuesday.
Prosecutor says witnesses deviated
Sindh general prosecutor was outraged when he found out that the prosecutor failed to point out that the witnessed turned hostile. As per procedure, the prosecutor has to make it clear before the judge that the witnesses are deviating from their statements.
After his angry statement, the special prosecutor submitted an application saying that the witnesses gave false statements and deviated from their earlier stance. He requested the court to take action against the witnesses and provide him an opportunity to cross-examine them. The court issued notices to the defence counsel to submit a reply on Tuesday (today).
Published in The Express Tribune, March 26th, 2013.