Police cannot escape from its responsibility by merely declaring the Nishtar Park bomb blast as suicidal bombing, observed Inquiry Tribunal, probing into the Nishtar Park tragedy on Monday.
The tribunal of Justice Rehmat Hussain Jaffery took notice over the police failure in examining the statement of two witnesses of the incident who said they saw substance was thrown from stage in air, which suddenly exploded.
The tribunal also wondered over the ignorance of DIG (Investigation) Manzoor Mughal who was unaware about the presence of a footstool between stage and the sitting area of congregation at Nishtar Park despite it was shown clear in police film before the blast.
The DIG admitted the fact that it was not examined by police from investigation point of view. "Every possibility could be helpful to ascertain the real facts of the incident," Justice Jaffery observed saying we could only reach the conclusion by rightly examining the circumstantial evidences of the incident.
The cross-examination of SSP Dr Zain Ali Sheikh of political wing and ASI Iftikhar, who prepared the video film of the main procession and congregation of Nishtar Park, were completed before the tribunal.
ASI Iftikhar, who is also eyewitness of the case, told the court that he did not see anything flying from stage and exploding in the air. However, he said that intensity of sound was at such extent that he could not stand on stage and fell down.
He said sound of explosion was recorded in his camera because its intensity was higher than voice of speakers addressing the congregation. To a query of tribunal, ASI said about 50 to 60 persons were present in space between the stage and sitting area of congregation and all persons were in scattered position and they were not standing in one position.
He said about 60 to 70 persons were offering prayers at stage while about 4 to 5 thousands people were offering prayer on ground. He denied that he complied the film after taking the same from other persons to make it film to produce before the tribunal. Although the witness was present at the scene of incident, he was not replying the quarries of tribunal properly and avoiding provision of information by saying he could not explain the event surely.