News
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Analysing the Sialkot inquiry reportBy Imran Kureshi
A close journalist colleague of mine always stressed the need for the whole truth, no matter how painful it is. Now before I start my analysis of the Sialkot tragedy and its subsequent inquiry report, let me first of all make it very clear that I unconditionally condemn such atrocities or vigilante killings and the footage of the crime left me appalled.
Unfortunately, the electronic media presented a very one-sided picture of the incident. They did not report at all about the incident in which one person was shot dead and three were injured by armed gunmen only hours before the actual lynching took place. No one bothered to speak to the family who lost their son, Bilal, while three of his brothers were also shot and injured. The polarising TV coverage was so effective that if someone even hinted that the two slain brothers – Mughees and Muneeb – were in anyway connected to the crime, people would get emotional.
The official inquiry report has been published and the learned judge has declared the two boys innocent. However, I as a layman am fully convinced that the two boys were involved in the incident due to the following reasons.
The testimony of a van driver, and the 25 passengers traveling with him, have been totally ignored in the judicial inquiry.
The driver and the passengers claim they witnessed the actual crime taking place at 6am, when there is adequate light to recognise someone. The driver later stopped the assailants who were on a motorbike (Mughees and Muneeb) from getting away by blocking their path with his van. The people of the village and the passengers then grabbed the brothers and started beating them up.
Later, when Rescue 1122 personnel arrived at the scene, they took the two brothers to their office. The rescue officers’ statements have also not been mentioned in the report. However, from paragraph 13 and 19 of the report, it is clear that the 1122 personnel clearly state that they brought the culprits back from the crime scene. The angry crowd also followed them.
This debunks the boy’s uncle, Zarar Butt’s, claims in the FIR that Mughees and Muneeb were passing by the rescue office, when the crowd grabbed them.
In any case, let’s not forget that Butt earlier said that the boys were returning after offering their prayers at the mosque. However, fajr prayers are held at 4:45am and the event occurred at around 6 to 7am. So there is a glaring discrepancy in his statements.
Secondly, there was no personal enmity between the brothers and the family members of Bilal. The crowd did not even know the true identity of the two brothers. In the FIR registered in Bilal’s murder, Shoukat Ali Bhatti (the complainant) states that he didn’t even know the boys. That is why in the FIR blames unknown assailants for killing Bilal and injuring his brothers. However, the honourable judge states that he suspects that Bhatti is trying to cover-up evidence since he had been running a milk shop near Mughees and Muneeb’s home for the last ten years. As further proof, the honourable judge mentions that in the footage one of the men torturing the two brothers asks: “Who are they?” and another one replies that they are from Hajipur. At best this evidence only shows that perhaps the complainant knew the boys by hearsay or face as people know other people from a neighbouring locality. On the other hand, note that this remark also indicates that the members of the crowd didn’t know the identity of the two brothers they were killing. So clearly they did not have any personal grudge or enmity with them as claimed by people.
Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that a bereaved father (the complainant), who has lost one son and his other sons are injured, would he be intent on trying to pin the blame on a presumed enmity that in fact has not really been established? Would he be willing to let the real dacoits go free and dishonour the death of his son?
Then we come to a another weak point in the inquiry report. The honourable judge doesn’t specify where he feels the two deceased brothers were found. According o the testimony of the Rescue 1122 officers, the two were found at the scene of the crime. However, the honourable judge does state that it was an unfortunate coincidence that they happened to be on the spot at 6am, and that it would never be known why they had gone there. I would imagine that in a case where there is definitely other evidence of guilt and the only defense is to say it was a coincidence, all this would not leave much room for doubt.
The most alarming and important fact is that the injured clearly identified their attackers. What sort of law is this that ignores the testimony of a boy who has been shot in broad daylight and whose brothers has been killed right in front of his eyes?
Even this evidence doesn’t carry much weight. Let us see how the report refutes the statements of the injured brothers. A few lines mention some people in the crowd saying that there were three assailants and one got away. The report claims this somehow make the statements of the victims doubtful, since they claim there were only two assailants. Apparently, a random remark by an unverified source is enough to refute the statement of the actual, injured victims. There can be any number of interpretations as to who is mistaken, and why? For instance, often dacoits keep one accomplice hidden in case he is needed for an emergency getaway; like when dacoits broke into my house, my wife and I thought there were only four of them. However, after the police caught them, we found out that there had been a fifth, who remained outside the house all the time. However, according to the report, this allegation is enough to nullify the appeals for justice by three bereaved and injured brothers. Furthermore, if this random statement is to be accepted for what it is worth, then surely this statement indicates that the witness has seen the crime, he recognises the two boys, who were later captured and that is why he is commenting on the escape of the third.
Finally, we come to the weapons that were seized from the accused. Why weren’t forensic tests carried out to ascertain this crucial piece of evidence? This would have solved this complex series of crimes once and for all.
The real lesson to be learned from this barbaric tragedy is that our criminal law code needs to be altered. Too often crooks get off scot free (even today over 300 terrorists are scheduled to be released) because of our legal system and often the police, big-shots and crooks are linked together. Thus people are forced to turn into lynch mobs. We have a sovereign parliament, which should consult lawyers and bureaucrats and thus come up with steps to improve our legal system. Furthermore, if we bring a paradigm change in the FIR system, it would undermine our jagirdari tradition as well. In fact, it will bring about a quiet, phased, legislative revolution. So let us learn a lesson from this horrendous incident and not get emotionally misdirected!
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk