1. SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---A direct complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. Was filed..It was alleged that on 13-8-2007 at about 4 a.m. a .Police party consisting of 50/60 police personnel headed by SHO Police Station, Pirjo Goth and SHO Police Station, Ahmedpur in 10/12 Police mobiles raided village of the complainant. It was further stated that such Police party entered the house of the complainant and his relatives, misbehaved with women-folk and wrongfully confined the inmates of the house of the complainant. It was further alleged that the Police party looted the household articles of the complainant party and took away some articles in Police mobile. It was further alleged that the accused persons arrested and took away with them four persons including Pakhar Ali son of the complainant. After taking illegal' gratification of Rs. 20,000 on 17-6-2007 Pakhar Ali was released and so were the other persons. It was further stated that after release Pakhar Ali approached SHO for recording of F.I.R., which was not recorded. He approached DPO, Khairpur for redressal of his grievance but to no avail. Finally application under section 22-A, C.P.C. Was filed and after order was passed on such application, F.I.R. Was registered. Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Khairpur issued medical certificate, which showed injuries on both feet of Pakhar Ali. On the F.I.R.
2. After investigation report was submitted and it was recommended to be disposed of in C-class.
3. The Judicial Magistrate concurred. Since Pakhar Ali was diabetic due to mental and physical torture, his condition became precarious and he was shifted to Liaquat National Hospital, where he expired on 14-10-2007.
4. After the complaint was submitted, statement was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. As also statements of three witnesses. A Thereafter vide order dated 12-3-2009 the complaint was dismissed for the following reasons:-- "6. The contention of complainant is that due to injuries received by deceased Pakhar Ali during wrongful confinement in police custody his condition became worst resulting in his death. The medical certificate dated 21-8-2007 available in the case file shows three injuries received by Pakhar Ali on upper, surface of right and left foot. The foot is non-vital part of body. And the injury examined by medical officer on 21-8-2007 and reported as old cannot be attributed towards death of Pakhar Ali because the complainant has not brought on record any medical certificate issued by Liaquat National Hospital Karachi where the deceased Pakhar Ali received medical treatment in his last days of life to determine that the old injuries on foot were the cause of death. The mere words of complainant are not sufficient to start trial the heinous offence of murder carrying death penalty."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon Muhammad Fayaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan and another (2010 SCM R 105) for his contentions that the scope of scrutiny under section 203, Cr.P.C. Is extremely limited and it has to be seen only whether a prima facie offence is made out or not. He relied upon the following observations from this Judgment:-- "It is settled principle of law that appreciation of evidence at preliminary inquiry with the yardstick of trial Court is not the purpose under section 202. The trial Court has to believe only to see a prima facie case is to be made out or not that is why full dress rehearsal of trial is not possible. This is the general principle with regard to examining the evidence on record before issuing process under section 204, Cr.P.C. Section 202 falls under Chapter XVI of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the scope of this section is to separate unfounded from substantial cases at the outset at the initial stages that is why command of the section bound the Magistrate who has to satisfy himself before issuing of process to the respondent/ accused. The object and scope of this section are two-fold which are as follows:--
(i) to allow free and fair opportunity to complainant to produce some evidence to make out grounds for issuing processes against accused. It is the duty of Magistrate to scrutinize contents of complaint, nature of allegations made therein, material in support of accusation.
(ii) Object intended to be achieved, possibility of victimization and harassment, if any, to ensure himself that no innocent person against whom all allegations are levelled should suffer ordeal of protracted, time consuming and cumbersome process of law.
6. The aforesaid proposition of law are supported by the following judgments:--
(i) Shaikh Meeran's case AIR 1915 Mad. 128 and (ii) Muhammad Nawaz's case 2000 SCM R 1904."
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the medical officer has not yet been examined and therefore it was premature for the learned Court below to come to the conclusion that the death has not been caused due to injuries received by the diabetic.
8. Learned counsel for the private respondents referred to the case summary written by the Liaquat National Hospital as well as death report and submitted that cause of death as well as the disease has nothing to do with any injury on feet of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that in the complaint names of the alleged accused persons are not stated. He further pointed out that there are contradictions in that in the statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. The complainant only alleged that a Police party entered his house but in the complaint it is stated that they entered the house of relatives also. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of P.W. Mujahid Ali where word 'house' is mentioned in singular. Learned counsel submitted that articles alleged to have been damaged or alleged to have been stolen, have not been identified either in the complaint or in any of the statements recorded in the Court below. Since learned counsel for the complainant had read from the preliminary inquiry report submitted by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate on 13-11-2008, he submitted that the preliminary inquiry report is not binding on the Court to which the complaint is made under section 200, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel relied upon Zulfiqar Ali v. Peer Ahmed Hussain and 5 others (2009 PCr.LJ 1256). In this case the court had noted the discordance in the statements recorded that one person had stated that he had gone unconscious whereas the other witnesses did not state anything in this regard. It was also noticed that the medical certificate produced by the applicant had not been sufficiently proved.
9. Learned counsel also relied upon Abdul Rashid v. Islam-ud-Din and another (1987 PCr.LJ 534). In this case Court noted a contradiction that according to Medico Legal Report, injuries were more than three days old and therefore it appeared that the injuries were not received during the alleged occurrence.
10. The learned DPG for the State submitted that in view of such situation it would be appropriate if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to consider the entire material available before it and if necessary to record statements of additional witnesses.
11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
12. In the complaint a series of allegations are levelled; the allegations of illegal trespass; allegations of illegal confinement; allegations of looting; allegations of taking away the articles and allegations of receiving bribe; besides the allegations of torture. The learned Court below has only looked at the question whether the alleged injuries caused to feet of the deceased were responsible for his death or not and has not at-all said any single word about other aspects of the allegations and has not considered what the learned counsel for private respondents called contradictions in the evidence and record available before it.
13. In my opinion interests of justice would be served if impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the trial Court to consider the entire material available before it and if it deems it necessary to summon other witnesses and to record their statements before finally deciding and thereafter pass a well-reasoned and well-considered order on the direct complaint.
14. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the above terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.