' Three petitioners alongwith their cousin Allah Bakhsh were reported against at Police Station, Kabirwala for having committed murder of Noor Muhammad on 27-6-1982 at night time in the vicinity of village Shamkot in front of the house of Noor Muhammad Qassab. Having remained unsuccessful to get the relief of bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, they have approached this Court.
2. According to prosecation case Noor Muhammad deceased had abducted Mst. Jannat, sister of Aslam and Akbar petitioners some seven years ago and married her. About four months prior to die occurrence the deceased was involved in a theft case and was sent to Jail, whereupon Mst.
Jannat having felt annoyed went to live with her parents. About six days prior to the occurrence Zulfiqar complainant accompanied by his brother, Noor Muhammad deceased, and P.Ws. Farid and Nawaz went to the house of the parents of Mst. Jannat to effect reapproachment with them and bring Mst. Jannat to the house of Noor Muhammad deceased but they failed in their mission.
As it was late in the night so, they decided to pass the night at the house of Noor Muhammad Qassab and the aforesaid witnesses alongwith the deceased slept outside his house.
3. It is alleged that at 2-30 a.m. Aslam petitioner armed with Toka, Akbar armed with a hatchet and their cousins Zulfiqar armed with a Toka and Allah Bakhsh armed with a hatchet came and attacked Noor Muhammad and gave numerous injuries on his person with their respective weapons which resulted in his death. The occurrence was witnessed by Zulfiqar complainant and as well as Farid and Nawaz P.Ws. The incident was reported the next morning at 6-30 at Police Station, Kabirwala by Zulfiqar, brother of the deceased. As many as seven incised injuries were noticed by the doctor who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Noor Muhammad.
4. The petitioners were arrested. During the investigation a bloodstained chhavi from Aslam petitioner and a blood-stained hatchet from Zulfiqar petitioner were recovered although according to F.I.R. They were armed with Tokas at the time of occurrence. However, nothing was recovered from Akbar petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has argued the case at a considerable length alleging, the motive is false, the eye-witnesses are untrustworthy being not residents of locality, and the recovery of such weapons effected from the petitioners, which they were not stated to be armed, at the time of occurrence, as per F.I.R. Which casts grave doubts in the case. He next contended, that Noor Muhammad Qassab has given a version which is at tangent with the story set up in the According to him the deceased, as also the prosecution witnesses visited his house and that, he had called Akbar petitioner there who had held deliberations about the restoration of Mst. Jannat to Noor Muhammad deceased. He however, stated that when he got up next morning, he found Noor Muhammad murdered and the witnesses told him that the murder was committed by the petitioners. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of one Hafiz Abdul Rahim Lambardar of Shamkot who was not told by the witnesses that the perpetrators of the murder in this case were the petitioners. Learned counsel has laid much emphasis on another statement purported to have been sworn by Mst. Jannat (wife of Noor Muhammad decea.Sed) on 2-5-1983 (only two days earlier) wherein she stated that she had never gone to the house of her parents and no deliberation to bring her back to the house of her husband had ever taken place between her husband and his relatives on one side and her parents on the other. She also stated that the deceased had illicit relations with the wife of Noor Muhammad Qasab and on the evening preceding his murder, he had gone to the house of Noor Muhammad Qasab. She further stated that Noor Muhammad had informed her that her husband had been murdered by unknown persons. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that in view of thereby being more than one prosecutions on the file, it has become case of further inquiry qua the guilt of the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has strenuously opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners for they have been specifically named in the F.I.R. And the cited witnesses have supported the story, therefore, there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as such their case is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and find, that at this stage a deeper appreciation of evidence collected against the petitioners cannot be undertaken, because the function to appreciate and evaluate the evidence exclusively rests with trial Court. The statement of Hafiz Abdur Rahim Lambardar who is not an eye-witness cannot be taken into consideration. Likewise the affidavit of Mst. Jannat which she has sworn after ten months of the occurrence, too is not a relevant consideration, for the present in the matter of grant of bail to petitioners. I am deliberately withholding further comments upon the affidavit of Mst.
Jannat and the statement of Hafiz Abdur Rahim Lambardar lest it should prejudice the case of either party. As for the statement of Noor Muhammad Qassab he has supported the story that deceased was staying at his house in the company of the eye-witnesses on the night when he was murdered. His statement has gained importance in view of claim of Zulfiqar and other eye- witnesses, who are not the residents of the locality but have unmistakably implicated the petitioners as the murderers of Noor Muhammad deceased. In short, making tentative assessment of the material available on record I hold that prima fade there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of committing offence punishable with extreme penalty and, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.