MUHAMMAD RAFI vs THE STATE

ORDER

Petitioner is accused for the commission of offence under section 302, P.P.C. For having committed the murder of deceased Muhammad Farid, F.I.R. In this case was lodged on 19th of August, 1990 at 6-30 a.m., while tile the occurrence had taken place during the preceding mid-night. Father of the deceased lodged the F.I.R. Stating therein that 'he had come to see his deceased son, and was sleeping on the roof of the house; during mid-night, he saw two persons in the courtyard of the house where the deceased alongwith his wife namely Khurshid Bibi was sleeping. According to the first informant, he saw two persons one of whom was Talib alias Kaka while the other was unknown to him; some of them were grappling with the deceased and his wife. According to the complainant, he was about to descend from the stairs to come down, when the deceased loudly remarked that Talib alias Kaka had killed him, and thus, in the sight of the complainant, Talib alias Kaka fired shot on the deceased. Motive for the commission of offence was that Talib alias Kaka had cut an indecent joke with the wife of the deceased, on account of which both the deceased and Talib alias Kaka had fought with each other, and the later had threatened the deceased.

2. Talib alias Kaka was not arrested, and after two months of the occurrence, Ramzan son of the deceased came forward, and claimed to be the eye-witness of the occurrence, and stated that it was his own mother who was responsible for the death of his father Muhammad Farid. Pursuant to the said disclosure, Khurshid Bibi, wife of the deceased was arrested, and her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded wherein she stated that the petitioner was her paramour, and on the fateful night, he had come to see her, but was detected by the deceased, on account of which, the petitioner killed the deceased. Thereafter, she was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura.

3. In support of this bail application, the learned counsel of the petitioner vehemently contends that the statement of Khurshid Bibi under section. 164, Cr.P.C. Is the only piece of evidence on the basis of which the petitioner Muhammad Rafi has been involved, but this piece of evidence is tainted and finds corroboration from nowhere. Furthermore, it is contended that such statement is inadmissible in evidence, because the same had been recorded on oath, therefore, it being the confessional statement has to be thrown out from consideration. The learned counsel further contends that the conflict between the statement of the first informant and Khurshid Bibi is irreconcilable. If at all the petitioner had killed the deceased, father and son of the deceased would not have kept silent for a period of two months, which appears to be mysterious.

4. I have considered all the aspects of this case. Obviously, the case has got different perspective, and it is a case of different versions. Since, I am dealing only with bail application, therefore, I would refrain to make any observation so as to prejudice the either side during the trial. Suffice it would be to add, that the case of different versions squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, being the case of further enquiry, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail.

Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One hundred thousand with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura.

N.H.Q./M-567/L