A series of deaths involving members of the Shar family in Khairpur has raised serious questions about police encounters, political influence and the protection of fundamental rights in Sindh. What began with the deaths of three young men has now taken another disturbing turn with the death of Rizwan Shar, a physically disabled man who, according to his family, was undergoing treatment for cancer when he was arrested in Punjab.
The three earlier deaths — Mujtaba Shar, alias Mujan; Aaqib Shar; and Moula Bux Shar — occurred on February 3, 2026, in the Kot Lalu area of Khairpur. Police described the incident as an encounter. The families, however, rejected the police version and alleged that the three men had been killed elsewhere and that their deaths were subsequently presented as a police encounter.
The controversy became serious enough to trigger protests on the Mehran Highway. According to The Express Tribune, relatives and supporters demanded registration of an FIR against Kot Lalu SHO Noor Din Khuharo and other police officials. The Sukkur DIG suspended Khuharo and directed him to report to the Sukkur Range office. The Inspector General of Sindh Police said an official inquiry into the encounter was under way.
Now, the family says, a fourth member has died.
Rizwan Shar, described by his relatives as physically disabled and suffering from cancer, had travelled with his family for medical treatment. According to the family's account, he was arrested while returning by train by Sub-Inspector Aftab of Rahim Yar Khan Police, Punjab. The family says that instead of being allowed to return home with his relatives, Rizwan was taken into police custody and subsequently his death was presented by police as the result of an encounter.
For the family, the death of Rizwan has transformed what was already a painful dispute into a question of survival: why have four members of the same family died in circumstances involving the police?
The allegations have also brought renewed attention to a longstanding land dispute. Local community members allege that the conflict is connected to Shiraz Shaukat Rajpar, a Pakistan Peoples Party MPA from Khairpur. Rajpar is the elected representative for PS-29 Khairpur-IV, But the Mr Rajpar Denies that.
Community members allege that political influence surrounding the land dispute was used against members of the Shar community and that police cases and encounters became instruments in a broader struggle for power. They further allege that influence was exercised over government departments to facilitate the use of rewards or “head money” against people who opposed the powerful interests involved.
These are grave allegations. They require an investigation not controlled by the same police structure accused by the families.
Importantly, Rajpar himself publicly called for an impartial inquiry into the deaths of Mujtaba Shar, Aaqib Shar and Moula Bux Shar. That position should be tested against the evidence and the outcome of any independent investigation.
The wider context makes the allegations even more serious.
Pakistan has repeatedly faced criticism over police encounters and alleged extra-judicial killings. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported that 4,864 police encounters were recorded in Sindh and Punjab during 2024. HRCP has warned that the scale and circumstances of some encounters raise serious questions about the use of lethal force and the rule of law.
The concern has continued. In February 2026, HRCP reported that its fact-finding mission had documented at least 670 Crime Control Department encounters in Punjab during eight months of 2025, resulting in 924 suspect deaths, compared with two police officers killed. HRCP called for a high-level judicial inquiry, saying the pattern indicated systematic concerns rather than isolated incidents.
Pakistan's own constitutional and legal framework provides protection for life, liberty, dignity and due process. The National Commission for Human Rights has noted that Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution protect the rights to life, liberty and dignity and that the Supreme Court has condemned extra-judicial killings and custodial deaths as violations of fundamental rights.
The existence of laws, however, means little if powerful individuals or institutions can circumvent them.
The National Commission for Human Rights has itself investigated serious allegations of police abuse. In the case of Dr. Shahnawaz Kumbhar, NCHR initiated suo motu proceedings following his alleged extra-judicial killing in Sindh in 2024; the inquiry resulted in FIRs against 21 police officials and one civilian.
This broader record explains why the Shar family's allegations cannot simply be dismissed as another criminal case or another police encounter. An encounter is not a conviction. A police allegation is not a judicial verdict. And a criminal case registered against a person does not give the state the authority to execute that person without due process.
The Shar community has therefore begun asking a much larger political question: if a sitting PPP MPA is alleged by local residents to have exercised political influence over the police and state institutions in a dispute involving members of the community, who will protect ordinary citizens and where can they seek justice?
That question should not be answered through political speeches. It should be answered through evidence.
The deaths of Mujtaba Shar, Aaqib Shar, Moula Bux Shar and now Rizwan Shar demand an independent investigation capable of examining the complete chain of events: the FIRs registered against the deceased, the circumstances of their arrests, police encounter reports, post-mortem findings, ballistic evidence, medical records, railway records relating to Rizwan's arrest, the identities of all officers involved, and any official notification concerning rewards or head money.
The families deserve to know how four members of one family died.
The public deserves to know whether these were genuine armed encounters or whether the machinery of law enforcement was used to settle a political and land dispute.
And the state has a responsibility to provide an answer that is based not on influence, police statements or political affiliation, but on evidence, accountability and the rule of law.
