Gul Plaza hearing: Witnesses hold minor child responsible for fire
Web Desk
|
9 Feb 2026
A significant development emerged in the Gul Plaza tragedy case on Monday when four eyewitnesses recorded their statements before the court of Judicial Magistrate South Asim Aslam.
During the hearing, three shop salesmen and a 13-year-old student testified before the court regarding the incident that occurred on 17 January.
According to the statements, the eyewitnesses included Arian, Talha, Waheed and Hamza.
Thirteen-year-old Arian told the court that he had gone to say goodbye to Huzayfa, who was sitting alone at his father’s shop and playing with matchsticks.
Arian stated that Huzayfa had two matchboxes and was alone in the shop. He said he arrived at the shop around 5pm and stayed there until 8:30pm before leaving for his father’s shop, where he later played with Samad, who lost his life in the fire.
He further testified that when he returned at around 10pm to say goodbye again, Huzayfa was still playing with matches, which caused the fire.
He added that Huzayfa had previously engaged in similar behaviour and shopkeepers had warned him, but this time the fire spread rapidly.
Another eyewitness, Talha, told the court that they were talking in their shop when a fire suddenly broke out in a flower shop.
He said they initially tried to extinguish the flames but were forced to flee as the fire intensified.
Waheed stated that they were sitting inside their shop when they heard children arguing, followed by cries that a fire had broken out.
He said they attempted to remove flowers from the shop, but the fire spread quickly due to nuts stored alongside the flowers, filling the area with smoke.
Meanwhile, Hamza testified that they were doing accounts work when fire erupted in Shop No. 193. He said the flames were so intense that even pouring water failed to control the blaze, forcing them to run outside to save their lives.
Judicial Magistrate Asim Aslam ordered that all eyewitness statements be made part of the official record and subsequently adjourned the hearing.
Comments
0 comment