1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---This is a case of unwitnessed murder of deceased Muhammad Bux which took place on 8-7-2004 during night time. The dead body of the deceased was found floating in Dadu Canal on 12-7-2004. The dead body had some injuries on his person. F.I.R. Was lodged on 13-7-2004 but before that on 12-7-2004 the complainant Lal Bux lodged report about the missing of deceased in which he did not show any suspicion against the present applicant but in the F.I.R., dated 13-7-2004 the complainant has shown suspicion on the applicant Ali Murad, Tillo and Muharam on the ground that about 7/8 days prior to the incident the deceased had informed him that he was apprehending danger from the hands of the said persons as there has exchange of harsh words between 'them. This was the background on which the applicant was arrested on 16-7-2004.
2. ' It is alleged that 20-7-2004 a blood-stained hatchet was produced by the applicant. There is no other evidence collected by the police against the applicant as stated by A.A.-G.
3. ' The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that merely on the production of hatchet and suspicion the involvement of the applicant has not been proved to connect him with the commission of this case.
4. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the recovery of hatchet is enough to connect the applicant with the commission of crime coupled with suspicion shown by the deceased when he was alive. The learned A.A.-G. Has also adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
5. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that incident was unwitnessed as such there are no eyewitnesses in the case. The suspicion shown by the deceased and recovery of hatchet are corroborative pieces of evidence. It is well-settled law that corroborative piece of evidence and substantive piece of evidence are to be read together and they cannot be read in isolation from each other. Corroborative piece of evidence without any substantive piece of evidence to which it corroborates will be of no help to the prosecution case. However, this requires deeper appreciation of evidence which can be thrashed out at the time of trial.
6. I have given due consideration to the material available on record and found that in this unwitnessed incident, merely on corroborative piece, without its substantive piece of evidence would not disentitle the applicant from benefit of bail, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.
7. Consequently the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) on furnishing solvent surety with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trail Court.
8. The application is allowed.