MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs MUHAMMAD ABID alias BILLA and others

ORDER

1. ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---- Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 209-L of 2013 This miscellaneous application is allowed in the terms prayed for therein. Disposed of.

2. Criminal Petition No. 524-L of 2013

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of the case with his assistance we have observed that in the Inquest Report no time of death had been recorded which indicated that till preparation of the Inquest Report the FIR had not been registered. Post- mortem Examination of the deadbody of Muhammad Shahbaz deceased had been conducted after nine hours of the incident which again was a factor pointing towards a possibility that time had been consumed by the local police and the complainant party in procuring and planting eye- witnesses and cooking up a story for the prosecution. In the case in hand the prosecution had produced two eyewitnesses namely Muhammad Ilyas complainant (PW9) and Muhammad Arshad (PW10) who were chance witnesses and they had failed to bring any evidence on the record establishing the stated reason for their presence close to the deceased at the relevant time.

3. A very important factor in this case was that respondent No. 1 namely Muhammad .bid had also received two incised wounds on his body, including one on his chest which injury was going deep, but the prosecution had completely suppressed the said injuries sustained by respondent No. 1.

4. During the trial respondent No. 1 had produced the relevant doctor as DW 1 who had confirmed medically examining respondent No. 1 for his above mentioned injuries within a matter of three hours of sustaining of such injuries. Suppression of such injuries on the body of respondent No. 1 had exposed the bona fide of the complainant party in narrating the incident in issue. The eye- witnesses produced by the prosecution had also seriously contradicted each other on many important aspects of the case. The motive set up by the prosecution had not been established through any independent evidence and the crime-empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after the arrest of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and even after recovery of the weapons of offence from their custody. In these circumstances the High Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondents Nos.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt which conclusion has not been found by us to be open to any legitimate exception. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.