' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 1- 10-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by which he has dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner summarily.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Masoom Fatima daughter of the petitioner aged about 15/16 years was arrested by the police in case F.I.R. No,356 of 2000 registered under sections 380 and 420, P.P.C. At Police Station Liaqatabad, Lahore, on the statement of Musaddaq Imran. She was taken to the Model Town Courts for producing her before the Magistrate and according to the police she had died as she had taken a poison. News were published in the daily "Nawa-i-Waqt" on the basis of which "the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, directed for the holding of inquiry regarding the cause of death of Mst. Masoom Fatima and the learned Sessions Judge had taken suo moto notice. The police officials were directed to submit the report and in compliance of the direction S.H.O., Liaqatabad submitted the report. In the meanwhile the petitioner also submitted an application to the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, who treated the same as complaint under section 302, P.P.C: and vide order dated 23-12-2000 sept the same to the Area Magistrate with a direction to examine the same and submit the same to the learned trial Court. The learned Magistrate on 26-12-2000 after recording the presence of Niaz Ahmad father of the deceased Masoom Fatima and her other relatives Muhammad Naeem, Naseem Akhtar, Khatoon Bibi, Shahbaz Bano, Majeed Khan and Junaid Iqbal referred the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, as the said complaint under section 302, P.P.C. Was triable by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant Niaz Ahmad and the matter was then referred to the learned Illaqa Magistrate to conduct the inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate had submitted his report on 22-1-2001 but the trial Court was not satisfied with the inquiry which was not properly conducted. The statements of the complainant Niaz Ahmad P.W.l and P.W.2 Muhammad Khalid were also recorded along with Adnan Nasir who appeared as P.W.3. The record of case* F.I.R. No,356 was also summoned. The attendance of the police officials were also procured. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 1- 10-2001 has dismissed the private complaint.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is an admitted fact that Mst. Masoom Fatima was in the custody of the police when her death occurred in a mysterious way and the police officials were responsible for her death but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the private complaint on surmises and conjectures. It is. Also contended that sufficient evidence was on the record to connect the respondents with the commission of the crime and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
4. I have heard the learned counsel' for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned judgment and the documents including the statements of the witnesses produced by the complainant. In the complaint (Exh.PB), he has not mentioned the names of any of the accused who had committed the murder of Mst. Masoom Fatima and only has stated that she was taken by the police in the custody. It is also claimed by him that the police station Liaqatabad took an amount of Rs, 1,00,000 and registered the case of theft against them. It is also stated that the deceased was murdered in the mysterious manner and Mushtaq Ahmad, S.H.O. And Rana Imdad Hussain, A.S.-I. Were on duty and the police had wrongly claimed that she had taken the poison.
While appearing as P.W.l the same statement has been made by him. The other witnesses are not eye-witnesses of the occurrence and they had not specifically pointed out their fingers towards the accused who had committed the offence. The only mentioning of the police officials is not sufficient to initiate the process against the police officials. In a private complaint before the accused is summoned to face the trial the learned trial Court has to satisfy that prima facie case against the accused is made out and the accused who has been summoned also has a right to know that why he has been summoned and on the basis of which evidence he has been summoned to face the trial in a murder case wherein he can be convicted and sentenced to death. The evidence which has been produced by the petitioner is based on conjectures and surmises and even the names of the accused and their roles have not been explained. Death of Mst. Masoom Fatima in the police custody can be a strong circumstance against the police officials but it was the duty of the complainant to point out the police officials who had taken her in custody and in whose custody she was administered poison but no details of the occurrence had been mentioned and no witness was produced in this connection. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint due to these technical reasons. Hence this revision petition having no merit is also dismissed. However, as the private complaint has been dismissed on technical grounds as well as insufficiency of evidence, if the petitioner has any sufficient evidence in his possession specifying the accused, he can file fresh private complaint, if so adyised, and the same will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the orders passed by this Court or the learned Additional Sessions Judge.