A district and sessions court has summoned two more witnesses in the couple’s harassment and assault case in the jurisdiction of Golra Police Station.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Atta Rabbani has issued orders for Assistant Commissioners Aneel Saeed and Tania Ahmed to record their testimonies at the next hearing on November 1.
A total of testimonies of eight witnesses have been recorded in the case, among them, four have already been cross-examined.
The plaintiff of the case Golra police SHO Asim Ghaffar and Rab Nawaz, who investigated the crime scene, recorded their testimonies the other day.
Malik Ikhlaq Awan, the counsel of the suspect Farhan Shaheen, has completed the cross-examination of both witnesses.
However, ASI Noor Elahi, who was with the SHO, and Usman Shah, the owner of the mobile shop from where the SHO took the clips on a USB, have not been cross-examined yet.
The plaintiff’s lawyer Hassan Javed Shorash and public prosecutor Hassan Abbas appeared before the court, while five suspects including the prime suspect, Usman Mirza, could not be brought to the court from Adiala jail due to the closure of roads. However, their attendance was marked via video link.
Suspects Rehan and Umar Bilal Marwat, who were on bail appeared before the court on notice.
During the last hearing, lawyer Malik Ikhlaq Awaan asked a witness about his whereabouts when he watched the video that went viral on the internet.
The witness replied that he had watched the video with Golra SHO near Golra Chowk.
The counsel then inquired whether the SHO usually showed him videos on his mobile phone, to which the witness replied that he showed him only if something was significant enough.
The lawyer asked about the number of videos and their duration, to which the witness replied four videos that collectively took around four minutes to watch.
Replying to another question, the witness responded that he and the SHO consulted about the videos for nearly two to four minutes.
Meanwhile, Sher Afzal, the lawyer of suspect Bilal Marwat asked why the suspects were not present in the courtroom during the cross-examination.
The plaintiff’s lawyer said that the suspects could not be brought to court because of the closure of roads.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 29th, 2021.