ASIF ALI alias MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- It is Faryad Ali, who is the complainant of case-FIR No.476/2011, dated 04.04.2011 registered for offences under sections 302, 34, 201, P.P.C. at Police Station Madina Town, Faisalabad, which contained the allegation that Muhammad Anwar, armed with pistol and his armed co-accused forcibly made their way into the house of Niaz Ali at about 12:30 p.m. on 04.04.2011 and murdered him at the spot in the backdrop of a previous pecuniary dispute between them.
2. The events took a turn when Mst. Muniran Bibi, the widow of the deceased, joined investigation on 29.04.2011 and rendered a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. whereby she contended that her husband had been murdered by Asif Ali alias Muhammad Asif and to save him from the consequences of the crime committed, his father assumed the role of complainant and reported the matter against innocent persons by fabricating false story; she quoted names of Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Sarwar as the source persons who had allegedly seen Muhammad Asif accused (petitioner) coming out of his own house with a pistol in hand and running away within their view. Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Sarwar joined investigation on 29.04.2011 and they rendered statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., whereby they claimed that they had seen Muhammad Asif accused running away from his house with a pistol in hand, whereafter they learnt that he had murdered Niaz Ali.
3. She rendered a supplementary statement on 02.05.2011 whereby she stated that Muhammad Asif accused had admitted his guilt as to murder of her husband before Muhammad Sharif and Nazir Ahmad on 30.04.2011, when they were present at their baithak. Muhammad Sharif and Nazir joined investigation the same day and gave an account of the admission made by Muhammad Asif accused (petitioner) before them qua the murder of Niaz Ali.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and persuing the record, it is observed that Faryad Ali, complainant of the FIR is real brother of Niaz Ali (deceased), whereas, Mst. Muniran Bibi happens to be his widow. It was Faryad Ali first who reported the matter to the police with the allegation that his brother Niaz Ali had been murdered at his house by Muhammad Anwar alias Kala, Bhola son of Sardar and two of their unknown aides, who all were armed with firearms then. The motive alleged related to a financial dispute between the parties. Mst. Muniran Bibi surprisingly kept silent for about twenty-five days and stepped forward to join the investigation on 29.04.2011 with the contention that her husband had been murdered by Asif Ali alias Muhammad Asif (petitioner), real son of Faryad Ali (complainant), as told to her by Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Sarwar, who had seen him running away from his own house on 04.04.2011 with a pistol in hand and immediately thereafter they learnt that he had murdered Niaz Ali. Both, Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Sarwar joined investigation on the same day (29.04.2011) and rendered statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. in verification of the assertion of the widow. They did not however say a word as to why they kept quiet for such a long period of time and only decided to come forward as informers of the widow after the first Investigating Officer, Munawar Hussain S.I had declared Muhammad Anwar etc, the nominated accused, as innocent and dubbed Asif Ali alias Muhammad Asif (petitioner), a potential murderer of Niaz Ali, though without recording any plausible evidence in this context. This Investigating Officer recorded a supplementary statement of Mst. Muniran Bibi on 02.05.2011 whereby she contended that Muhammad Asif accused had admitted his guilt as to murder of her husband before Muhammad Sharif and Nazir Ahmad on 30.04.2011 when they were present at their baithak. Muhammad Sharif and Nazir Ahmad joined investigation and rendered statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., the same day i.e. 02.05.2011 and furnished an account of the admission made by Muhammad Asif accused before them about the murder of Niaz Ali. Their statements hardly impressed being hazy and imprecise, providing no clue as to why the petitioner had selected to confess his guilt before them. Their joining the investigation two days after the alleged confession of the accused causes eyebrow-raising. Furthermore, this sort of evidence has generally been considered a vulnerable circumstance, for, it could easily be manoeuvred by the prosecution wherever direct connecting evidence against a person would not come their way. In a later development, inspector Muhammad Jahangir, however arrested Muhammad Anwar etc. and sent them to judicial lock-up as under trial prisoner, by opining that Mst. Muniran Bibi had developed an illicit liaison with Muhammad Anwar accused and her involvement in the murder of her husband could not altogether be ruled out.
5. On first change of investigation this case was investigated by inspector Muhammad Iqbal, RIB, Range Sheikhupura, who declared Mst. Muniran Bibi etc. innocent and found Muhammad Asif (petitioner) together with his father Faryad Ali (complainant) guilty of offence, without bringing any fresh evidence on the record. His opinion as to guilt of the petitioner looks more of a capricious and gratuitous circumstance.
6. Of late, Faryad Ali instituted a private complaint against Muhammad Anwar etc. including Mst. Muniran Bibi, which has been admitted to regular hearing and it is at the stage of recording the prosecution evidence, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, Mst. Muniran Bibi also filed a private complaint against the accused/petitioner and his father which too is at the stage of recording the prosecution evidence before the learned trial court. The evidence of murder of Niaz Ali is based on two theories, one advanced by the petitioner's side and other by Mst. Muniran Bibi's side. Which one of the two tales is correct could only be known on conclusion of the trials of the respondents in both the episodes. Till then, guilt or innocence of a particular side would remain anybody's guess. A pistol was recovered at the instance of the petitioner on 27.05.2015 but its evidentiary value may be adjudged by the learned trial court during his trial, of course, keeping in mind that no crime empty had been recovered by the Investigating Officer during spot inspection. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 14.05.2015 and he is no more needed by the police for any recovery etc. Prima facie, his case constitutes need for further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., hence, his alleged abscondence for about four years would lose relevance at this stage.
For the foregoing reasons, this application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
HBT/A-46/L Bail granted.