KHALIL AHMAD vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Khalil Ahmad petitioner aged about 23 years alongwith co-accused Meraj Din was arrested on the 31st of August, 1998 in pursuance of a case registered against them vide First Information Report No,481, dated the 12th of August, 1998, recorded under section 302/109/32, P.P.C. At Police Station, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura regarding an occurrence which took place on the 12th of August, 1998 at 6-00 p.m. In the area of Rachna Town, which is 3 furlongs from the Police Station, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, where the first information report was lodged on the same day at 7-00 p.m. By Muhammad Anwar, brother of Abdul Majeed deceased who died at the spot on account of the firing resorted to by Khalil Ahmad petitioner and co-accused Meraj Din who were both armed .30 bore pistols. Abdul Majeed deceased suffered 10 injuries on his body. According to the first information report he was fired at twice by Khalil Ahmad petitioner and hit on the backside of the chest. According to the post-mortem report these are injuries Nos.3 and 4. Co-accused Meraj Din was also armed with .30 bore pistol and fired twice at Abdul Majeed deceased and hit him on the right arm. According to the post-mortem report these are injuries Nos.7 and 8.

2. The ocular account given by the first informant Muhammad Anwar who is the real brother of Abdul Majeed deceased is supported by 2 eye-witnesses in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. However, the Investigating Agencies differ with the ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses and the first informant. Sub-Inspector, Mumtaz Ali of Police Station, Ferozewala recorded an opinion on the 9th of September, 1998 that although Khalil Ahmad petitioner was present at the time and place of occurrence, he was empty-handed. Station House Officer, Syed Riaz Ali Shah agreed on the same day i,e, the 9th of September, 1998. Rana Shahid Ahmad Khan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ferozewala agreed on the 10th of September, 1998 and finally Ghulam Qasim Niazi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.A., Sheikhupura also gave a similar opinion on the 21st of December, 1998. Thus, on the one hand, there are 3 eyewitnesses of the occurrence including complainant Muhammad Anwar, brother of Abdul Majeed deceased unanimously saying that Khalil Ahmad petitioner was armed with a .30 bore pistol with which he fired twice at the deceased and hit on the back, which version prima facie seems to be in line with the medical evidence, on the other hand, there is a set of 4 Police Officers who are obviously not eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they all agree with one another that although Khalil Ahmad, petitioner was present, he was empty-handed and, therefore, to the extent of Khalil Ahmad petitioner their version is in conflict with the ocular account and also in conflict with the medical evidence. Unfortunately in our country there are no private detective agencies. Whenever, a crime takes place both the parties i,e, the accused and the complainant arc at the mercy of the police. I am noticing a growing tendency where. The police either declares accused persons to be what they describes as "innocent" or exclusively destroy the ocular account of an occurrence given by eye-witnesses. Even before the commencement of the trial. It is for this reason that the superior Courts have held repeatedly that the ipse dixit of the police is not binding upon the Courts. To believe or disbelieve eye-witnesses is a judicial function and too serious a matter to be left to Police Officers alone who cannot be allowed to play ducks and drakes with the Courts. In the instant case 3 eye-witnesses are unanimously saying that Khalil Ahmad petitioner was armed with a pistol with which he fired twice at the deceased resulting in his death which account prima facie seems to be in line with the post-mortem report. Thus, reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years, prima facie, seem to exist, which bring the case of the petitioner within the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And disentitles him from the grant of bail.

3. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.