2017 PCrLJN 215

Haji DAULAT KARIM Versus State

Citation2017 PCrLJN 215

CourtGilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Judge(s)Muhammad Alam and Malik Haq Nawaz

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- Through this criminal appeal, appellant has challenged some parts of the impugned judgment, wherein, the trial court has passed directions for initiating disciplinary action against appellant. Appellant, who is one of the Investigating Officer of the occurrence, reported through FIR No.514/05 of the Police Station City, felt aggrieved from the said remarks considering the same against facts. For ready reference, I reproduce the same hereunder:-

"55. IP (Rtd) Haji Doulat Karim (PW-11) is the I.O. of the instant case. He has investigated the case with effect from 11.06.2007 along with SP Shoukat Rasheed member JIT under the provision of AIG Mustafa Chairman JIT. The said PW got prepared site plan Ex.PW-7/A of the place of occurrence on the pointation of accused Habib-ur-Rehman in presence of Magistrate (PW-7). The said PW recorded the statement of injured eye-witness Shakoor Mohammad on 26.06.2007. The said PW got obtained proclamation notice under section 87 Cr.P.C. ExPW-11/A against absconders accused Mohakmullah, Afzal alias Chota Qari, Ghulam Abbas and Farooq. On 30.06.2007, the said PW got recorded the confessional statement ExPW-4/B of accused Nadir Aman under section 21-H of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and committed the said accused to Judicial lockup. The said PW also got recorded the confessional statement ExPW-4/A of accused Habib-ur-Rehman on 02.07.2007 and committed the accused to Judicial lockup. After completion of the investigation, the said PW has prepared incomplete challan ExPW-11/B against accused Habib-ur-Rehman and Nadir Aman and absconders accused Mohkamullah, Afzal alias Chota Qari, Ghulam Abbas and Farooq."

"56. It is pertinent to mention here that the said PW has recorded the statements of the injured eye witness Shakoor Mohammad on 26.06.2007 after one year 8 months and fifteen days of the occurrence, and thereby collected false and fabricated evidence aster such inordinate delay which is fatal to prosecution version Vide Para No.19 above, the IG Police Gilgit-Baltistan has already been directed to take strict disciplinary action against the said PW collecting false and fabricated evidence."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"76. The amount of Diyat shall be recovered from the Police officers who are responsible for defective investigation and failure of the instant case as mentioned in paras Nos.19, 49, 60, 63 and 64 above."

2. The occurrence of FIR No.514/2005 was reported in the Police Station City Gilgit, who; after completion of the investigation, challaned/charge sheeted accused of the occurrence in the court of ATC Gilgit. After submission of charge sheet/challan, learned trial court registered the case as T.C. No.15/2007. Learned trial court completed trial proceedings and came to the conclusion, reproduced above.

3. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Deputy Advocate General and have thoughtfully considered their arguments. The appellant, who is presently practicing as a lawyer, appeared in person and argued that the learned trial court has mis-appreciated the facts of the case and have wrongly condemned appellant. From plain perusal of above findings of the learned trial court, it is evident that the learned trial court has wholly solely relied on Mr. Shakoor Mohammad, the injured person of the occurrence, who is the only eye-witness thereof. In the opinion of the trial court, appellant recorded statement of the said eye-witness after about 1 (one) year 8 (eight) months and 15 (fifteen) days of the occurrence, rendering the same doubtful. In the opinion of the learned trial court, this conduct of the appellant amounted to mis-conduct and learned trial court had to pass the impugned findings. In this connection, learned trial court has clearly omitted to appreciate the correct situation. Parties to the case admitted that investigation of the occurrence was not handed over to the appellant soon-after the occurrence and instead the same was handed over to the appellant on 11-06-2007, while the occurrence has taken place on 11-10-2005. Appellant recorded statement of PW Shakoor Mohammad on 26-6-2007. It is also not disputed that a number of police officers conducted investigation of the case soon-after the occurrence and did not record statement of PW Shukoor Mohammad till 11-06-2007, when the investigation was handed over to the appellant. Appellant recorded statement of PW Shukoor Mohammad only after 15 (fifteen) days after the investigation was handed over to him. So, we are of the opinion that the above reproduced findings may operate against all other police officers who conducted investigation of the case except the appellant.

4. Therefore, we allow this appeal and direct for expunging the findings/remarks of the trial court but only to the extent of appellant. Appeal allowed accordingly. This file be consigned to record.

JK/31/GB Order accordingly.