KARACHI: Exonerating an accused from the charges of extortion and terrorism, an antiterrorism court has directed the Karachi police chief to take a stern action against five officials of the Iqbal Market police station for registering fake criminal cases and making false testimonies against him.

The accused Asif, alias Choona, was charged with hurling life threats and collecting protection money from a resident of Orangi Town.

The ATC-XII judge, who conducted the trial in the judicial complex inside the central prison, pronounced his judgement, which was reserved earlier after recording evidence and final arguments from both sides.

The judge advised the Additional IG of Karachi Range to take action against the policemen, who were witnesses in the case, for being instrumental in managing the FIR against the accused.

The City police chief was also told to ensure “such type of police officials are not posted for operational and investigational duties, as they are mark of stigma upon the police force.

“It is the duty of the police to help/protect the public instead of involving them in false cases,” observed the court, asking the AIG Karachi to ensure proper inquiries were initiated against the police officials, who were witnesses of the prosecution, and a stern action be initiated and a compliance report in this regard be submitted to the court within 30 days.

According to the prosecution, complainant Muhammad Khalil-ur-Rehman alleged in an First Information Report (FIR) that a boy, Asif, alias Choona, had been harassing him for the last two years by hurling life threats and demanding Rs200,000 protection money and he paid him Rs10,000 to save his life.

It further alleged that on Aug 25, 2017 the accused armed with an unlicensed pistol visited the complainant’s house once again and threatened him to arrange Rs100,000 protection money before Eidul Azha or face dire consequences.

The police claimed to have detained Asif on Aug 31, 2017 and allegedly recovered an unlicensed pistol from him. He was booked in two separate cases registered against him under Sections 385 (putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion), 386 (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt), 506-B (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 23(I)-A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

During the trial, the accused recorded his statement under Section 342 of the criminal procedure code, denying the incident and the recoveries claimed by the prosecution. He alleged that the cases and the recoveries were managed by the police.

According a report issued by the police’s crime record office, the detained accused was involved in a case registered by the Crime Investigation Agency (CIA), but he was later acquitted of the charges.

The accused alleged that the police officials had made false testimonies against him on the instigation of the complainant, who had enmity with him. However, he failed to produce any evidence in his defence and pleaded for justice.

During the trial, the prosecution’s witness, first investigating officer of the case, Inspector Rooh-ul-Ameen, deposed that he took the complainant and his son Muhammad Khalid to the place of the incident, prepared the sketch and obtained their signatures on it.

During the cross-examination, the complainant testified that he had filed complaints against the present accused twice, but gave contradictory names of the persons, who had written those applications, as he had not written the applications by himself.

He also voluntarily deposed that he had enmity with Asif, who had allegedly got registered false criminal cases of extortion and police encounter against his son. But, he failed to produce any witness of payment and extortion money against the present accused.

Therefore, the court did not consider his testimony observing that the complainant did not appear to be trustworthy since he had made serious dents in the story of the prosecution, thus his evidence was liable to be thrown away.

The court also found contradictions in the testimony of the second prosecution witness, Muhammad Khalid, who is the son of the complainant, for changing his statement before the court from his initial statement given to the police.

The fourth prosecution witness, Assistant Sub-Inspector Munir Ahmed, deposed that he was posted at the Iqbal Market police station on the day of the incident and had registered the FIR of the incident after receiving complaint from the complainant. But, he failed to mention the time of entry of the complaint in the Roznamcha (daily log book) at the police station and time of registration of the FIR.

Fifth prosecution witness, Assistant Sub-Inspector Ashique Ali Panhwar, deposed that he was on patrol duty along with two police constables Nek Muhammad and Muhammad Bux on Aug 31, 2017 when they arrested two suspicious persons Atif and Kashif and prepared the memo of their arrest in the presence of both constables.

He testified that Asif first mentioned his name wrongly as Atif and during interrogation he disclosed to have a pistol in his possession, adding that on the information obtained from him the weapon was recovered from his bedroom in the presence of both the constables.

The judge noted that the signatures of the witnesses in the memo of arrest of the accused and his re-arrest in the memo of weapon recovery were different from each other and ASI Ashique Ali Panhwar was stating falsely in the evidence before the court.

The court found the memos to be managed ones and that the PW Panhwar was in the habit of making different types of signatures, which showed his “character was not trustworthy”. Thus, his evidence was not considered.

The court also noted that ASI Panhwar had failed to show any cogent reason in the documents for arrest of Asif over suspicion and release of another person Kashif, thus did not appreciate testimony of the sixth witness PC Nek Muhammad.

The court also declared the evidence of the seventh prosecution witness, Sub-Inspector Zahid Hussain Unar, the second IO of the case, unreliable. The witnessed had deposed that he was posted at the Toori Bangash police post of the Iqbal Market police station, when he was assigned the investigation of the case.

SI Unar failed to produce any evidence to prove that he had produced the detained man for remand before the judicial magistrate concerned, who had verbally instructed the IO to keep custody of the Asif at any police station other than the PS Iqbal Market since he apprehended that he would be implicated in more criminal cases if kept at the Iqbal Market police station.

He also failed to produce any record of arrival and departure at the PS Pakistan Bazaar, where Asif was kept alternatively.

The court noted that the prosecution witness, Inspector Syed Rooh-ul-Ameen, tried to protect the complainant by deposing that the detained man was blackmailing him (complainant) to implicate his son in false cases, but failed to produce any document to prove such allegation.

Published in Dawn, October 31st, 2018