ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 18-L of 2016 ' For the reasons mentioned in this miscellaneous application the same is allowed and the delay in filing of Criminal Petition No,42-L of 2016 is condoned. Disposed of.
Criminal Petition No, 42-L of 2016
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that the occurrence in this case had been reported to the police quite promptly and in the FIR Mohsin Ali petitioner had specifically been nominated as one of the perpetrators of the alleged murder and he was attributed two firearm injuries to the deceased, one hitting on the back of the neck of Muhammad Ikram deceased and the other hitting the left cheek of the deceased. It may be true that the injury found on the left cheek of the deceased had been found to be an exit wound but it cannot be lost sight of that the injury attributed to the petitioner on the back of the deceased's neck was fully confirmed by the Postmortem Examination Report. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the murder in issue and prima facie the medical evidence lends sufficient support to the allegation leveled against the petitioner. An offence under section 302, P.P.C. Attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The investigating agency had opined in its report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. That the petitioner was guilty only of providing behind-the-scene abetment to his co-accused and that he was not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time but with the assistance of the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State we have gone through the record of investigation and have found that the opinion so recorded by the investigating agency is not based upon sound material. We have been informed that the petitioner's trial has already commenced and statements of two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded by the trial court.
3. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and, thus, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.