FATEH BIBI Versus SAWAL KHAN

ORDER

The petitioners have been arrested in case F.I.R. No. 88, dated 4‑8‑1988, Police Station Ahmadpur Sial, District Jhang, registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. on the statement of Muhammad Abdullah, for the murder of his son Shahadat Ali alias Shadi, husband of Mst. Khurshid alias Guddi petitioner.

2. According to F.I.R. the deceased was married to Mst. Khurshid alias Guddi and she had given birth to a son and a daughter, but the spouses often used to quarrel among themselves and Mst. Khurshid alias Guddi used to give beating to the deceased. The deceased once had turned out Mst. Khurshid from his house but on the intervention of the Bratheri he brought her back. Shadi (deceased) was lost 4 days prior to the occurrence. The complainant searched for him in near-about places. On failure to locate him, he reported the matter to the police. It has been expressed by him in the F.I.R. that Shahadat Ali was murdered by Mst. Khurshid alas Guddi, Mst. Rukhsana her sister, Muhammad Siddiq their brother and Mst. Sughra, their mother.

3. During investigation the petitioners made extra‑judicial confession before Muhammad Yusaf son of Qutab Din, complainant and Muhammad Abdur Rashid son of Ali Bakhsh, wherein it was disclosed by Mst. Khurshid alias Guddi and Mst. Rukhsana that Mst. Rukhsana had caught the deceased by legs while Mst. Khurshid had murdered him with a Toka. They also stated that they had buried his dead body in their house but as it had started giving bad smell they dug out the dead body and buried the same in an uninhabited Haveli. The dead body was recovered in the presence of Ghulam Rasul and other P.Ws. at the pointing out of Mst. Khurshid alias Guddi petitioner. Blood‑stained Toka was recovered at her instance while Kassi with which they had prepared ditches to bury the deceased, was recovered at the instance of Mst. Rukhsana petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners on re‑consideration has made a prayer for permission to withdraw the petition in so far as it pertains to Mst. Khurshid alias Guddi and Mst. Rukhsana petitioners. Petition qua them, therefore, stands disposed of as having been withdrawn.

5. For the other two, learned counsel contended that apart from the fact that no ocular account has been given in the F.I.R., the witnesses before whom the accused are alleged to have made confession, also did not state of their having played any role in the commission of murder and that all they have stated is, that these two were also present at the time the murder was committed. Muhammad Siddiq petitioner, according to school leaving certificate was born on 25‑1‑1977, which means that he was less than 12 years even at the time of commission of offence. Mst. Sughra is stated to be an old lady.

6. As noted earlier, there is no ocular account in this case. Nothing was recovered from Siddiq and Mst. Sughra petitioners. Even according to the witnesses of extra‑judicial confession, they had not played any role either in I committing the murder of the deceased or in his burial.

In the circumstances, reasonable grounds do not appear against these two of having committed the offence charged with. The petition qua Mst. Sughra and Siddiq petitioners is, therefore, allowed and they are directed to be released on bail, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of rupees twenty‑five thousand each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Jhang.

M.Y.H./K‑145/L

Bail allowed.