Commission in Karachi rejects forensic expert’s request for additional statement — Dawn
In Karachi, Pakistan, a judicial commission refused a request by forensic medical expert Osama Sheikh, who conducted the first autopsy of businessman Mir Raza Ali, to hear his additional statement in the murder case. This was reported by Dawn.
The one-member commission is headed by Sindh High Court judge Omar Sial. An order issued following the hearing stated that Sheikh had said on social media that he had more to tell the commission than he had previously said.
The commission’s position
Sial asked Sheikh whether he wanted to claim that Ali’s death was a suicide rather than a murder. The forensic expert replied that he had no such intention and did not consider the death a suicide. According to him, he wanted to substantiate his conclusion that the bullet entered from the front.
The judge noted that, in his view, the purpose of the additional statement was to malign the police forensic medical expert and the province’s chief minister. He stressed that the commission was not a platform for mutual accusations, and that its mandate was to establish the facts of the case and determine possible negligence. Sial added that the commission already had sufficient information to do so.
More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.
Autopsy discrepancies
The first autopsy sparked controversy after Karachi police forensic medical expert Sumaiya Syed pointed out shortcomings in its findings. The body of 25-year-old Ali was exhumed and a second autopsy was conducted.
The final second-autopsy report found that death resulted from a gunshot wound to the chest: the entry wound was on the back and the exit wound was on the front of the chest. The report also stated that such findings were incompatible with suicide.
During an earlier appearance on September 1, Sheikh said that he had not faced pressure during the first autopsy and had nowhere stated that Ali died by suicide. At the same time, the commission expressed dissatisfaction with his answers, noting discrepancies between the initial and final reports. Earlier, the commission also stated that the first investigator had made almost no effort to investigate and had not completed the necessary legal formalities.
