MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another vs THE STATE

ORDER

' Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Rafique petitioners are accused persons in case F.I.R. No,542 registered at Police Station, Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal on 16-11-1998 for offences under section 302/ 324/148/149/109, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioners and 4 others is that at about 12/1 a.m. During the night between 15/16-11-1998 they had committed the murders of Bagh Ali and Liaqat Ali and had injured Mst. Khurshid Bibi and Amanat. The petitioners were arrested by the local police in connection with this case on 11-2-1999. An application for post-arrest bail submitted by petitioner No,1 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 26-2-1999. A similar application filed by petitioner No,2 was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide order, dated 1-3-1999. Both the petitioners have jointly filed the present petition before this Court seeking bail after arrest.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that Muhammad Yousaf, petitioner No,1 had initially acted as the complainant in this case and he was the one who had lodged the abovementioned F.I.R. Before the local police.

Subsequently during the investigation he and others were implicated in this case as accused persons although initially both the petitioners were not cited as accused persons in this case. In view of this pecularity of the present case it is obvious that the petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R. As the perpetrators of the offences alleged. Another significantly noticeable fact of this case is that Mst. Khurshid Bibi and Amanat, who were both injured during the incident in question have not implicated the present petitioners as the culprits. So far the prosecution is possessed of four statements made by certain witnesses regarding extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the present petitioners and others before them and also statement of Khurshid Bibi regarding last seen evidence. I have gone through the statements made by the abovementioned witnesses before the police. As regards the alleged extra-judicial confessions made by the petitioners and others it has been found that the said confessions were allegedly made about 3 weeks after the occurrence in question. Although statedly the said confessions had been made by the accused persons individually in the same session before the witnesses yet there were ingredients of a joint extra-judicial confession available in the statements made by these witnesses. It is settled law that a joint extrajudicial confessions is inadmissible in evidence. Even otherwise an extrajudicial confessions is generally accepted to be a very weak type of evidence. Apart from that, without prejudice to the case of the prosecution, it has significantly been noticed that the alleged extra- judicial confessions made by the petitioners were non-specific and shorn of the necessary details about the incident in question. As regards the last seen evidence produced by Mst. Khurshid Bibi suffice it to observe for the limited purpose of the present bail application that a last seen evidence is never sufficient by itself to positively connect an accused person with the offences allegedly committed by him.

3. For what has been discussed above prima facie the prosecution is so far possessed of no direct evidence positively implicating the petitioners in the offences allegedly committed by them. The worth and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions and the last seen evidence shall be seen at the trial. Thus, the case against the petitioners squarely calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.