AZIZA BEGUM Versus BADSHAHAN

ORDER

Petitioner is one of the accused in case: F.(.R. No.205 registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala, on 16-6-1993 under section 302, 324/34, P.P.C. on the statement of Muhammad Bashir, father of Muhammad Salim (deceased). He alleged that on the same day at 9 p.m. when he alongwith his sons, including Muhammad Salim (deceased) was present in his house situated in Tatlianwala Mohallah of Gujranwala Town, there was knock at the outer door of the house. In response thereto, Muhammad Salim (deceased) went out to find out as who he was and to his surprise he saw Abid petitioner, Achha and Munna all armed with Chhuris, and Imtiaz with an iron rod, present in front of the door. No sooner as he went out then Achha co-accused immediately caught hold of him saying that they had come to teach him a lesson for asking them not to sit on the way. Simultaneously, he gave a Chhuri blow on the left side of his chest, followed by Munna co-accused, who also gave Chhuri blow on his chest. Shahbaz and Amin, the brothers of the victim, rushed towards the spot in order to rescue him but by that time he fell down in their presence and the accused attacked the rescuers as well. Abid petitioner in that process gave Chhuri blow on the chin and left chest of Muhammad Shahbaz P.W. and also gave a Chhuri blow on the left leg of Amin P.W. while Imtiaz co-accused gave "Saria" blow on his head right arm and left leg. When a number of "Mohallahdars" were attracted to the spot and they tried to rescue the victim, Abid petitioner, after pulling out his mouzer from the fold of his Shalwar, started firing in the air to scare them away, whereafter all the assailants ran away. Muhammad Salim injured was removed to the hospital but he died on the way. The matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Bashir, the father of the deceased, and a case was registered in the manner aforesaid.

2. During the investigation the petitioner was arrested on 2-7-1993 and a licensed pistol was recovered from him.

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that as a result of the investigation the petitioner has been found, not to have caused any injury to the deceased nor to the P.Ws. and he was only found to have fired in air at the time of occurrence. According to the learned counsel, the licensed pistol has been recovered from him during investigation but the Chhuri, with which he had allegedly caused the injuries to the P.Ws., has not been recovered and this fact goes a long way to cause a doubt in his complicity in this case. Finally, it is urged that the petitioner has been behind the bars for a long period and the trial has not yet commenced.

4. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State on the ground that the petitioner has been attributed injuries to two of the witnesses and one of the injuries caused to Shahbaz is located on the chest, a vital part. According to the Law Officer, no Investigating Officer has, during the course of investigation, come to the conclusion that Abid petitioner did not cause injuries to the eye-witnesses. He submits that he was found to have caused injuries to the eye-witnesses and also having fired with a pistol to scare away the rescuers.

5. Prior to the address of the learned Assistant Advocate-General, the Court has asked A.S.I. Ihsanul Haq of Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala, as to how far the police record supports the contentions of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was found, not to have caused any injury to the deceased nor to the two injured witnesses. In reply to this question, first he has stated that the petitioner has been found not to have caused any injury to the injured eye-witnesses but when he has been asked to read out the findings of the Investigating Officer, he has, after reading out the last case diary, dated 26-7-1993, written by S.I. Muhammad Salim Sadiq, S.I. of Police Station Baghbanpura, stated that no such findings have been recorded, rather, he has held the petitioner, alongwith his co-accused, guilty of murder as alleged by the complainant party. When he has been asked, as to why he has made a verbal statement contrary to the record, he says that he happened to utter these words on account of perplexity, more so for the reason that the Chhuri had not been recovered from him.

6. In the F.I.R. the petitioner has been assigned a specific role of causing injuries to Shahbaz and Amin P.Ws., the brothers of Muhammad Salim (deceased), who tried to rescue him from the assailants. He is also alleged to have resorted to ineffective firing during or immediately after the occurrence on the spot in order to scare away other rescuers. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the investigation, his client was found not to have caused any injuries to the eye-witnesses, does not find support from the police record, which the A.S.I., first tried to misread, obviously with a view to help the petitioner in getting bail but when he has been asked to read it out, there is nothing to support the argument of the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner and his co-accused, apparently annoyed by a petty earlier controversy with the deceased, came over to his house after arming themselves with the deadly weapons, and, after calling him out of his house, took his life. In view of the above, there is no substance in his bail application and the same is dismissed. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial of this case.

N.H.Q./A-614/L

Bail refused.