' Mukhtar Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif, petitioners along with two others were reported against by Muhammad Ishaq complainant, father of Abdul Razzaq deceased, vide F.I.R. No, 91, dated 2-9- 1982 registered at Police Station Kassowal, District Sahiwal. The petitioners had earlier applied to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, unsuccess fully, hence this petition.
2. According to the F.I.R., Abdul Razzaq, deceased was irrigating his fields at about 4-00 a.m. on 2- 9-1981. His father Muhammad Ishaq complainant was returning to his fields after meeting some friends when he heard the alarm raised by the deceased. He ran to that direction alongwith Muhammad Yasin and saw that the deceased was being given hatchet blows by both the petitioneRs, He also saw that Mukhtar Ahmad, petitioner had poured acid (contained in a jug) upon the deceased and thereafter, again numerous hatchet blows were dealt to the deceased. At his alarm Abdul Hamid was attracted to the spot who also saw the occurrence. The deceased was removed to the hospital in an injured condition where his statement was recorded by an A .S.I., in the presence of the Medical Officer who opined that the victim was capable of making a statement. In this statement, the victim had stated that Muhammad Sharif and Mukhtar Ahmad (petitioner) were his assailants, that is, Muhammad Sharif dealt hatchet blows while Mukhtar Ahmed poured acid on him. He died in the hospital subsequently. His post-mortem shows, that there were incised wounds and acid burns on the dead body.
3. This case was investigated by two agencies, namely, the local police and the Crimes Branch.
During the investigation, beside the petitioners, two other persons namely; Zafar Iqbal and Niaz were joined as co-accused of the petitioners, who allegedly stood at a distance of about two Acres from the place of occurrence. The local police as well as the Crimes Branch appear to have agreed that Zafar lqbal and Niaz were innocent. According to the local police, the present petitioners were found guilty and challaned but the Crimes Branch officials declared the petitioners as innocent.
However, Muhammad Amir, S.I., of Crimes Branch who is present before me, states that although the petitioners were found innocent by him yet he thought it proper to send them up for trial in view of their having been named in the F.I.R. as well as in the dying declaration.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that since the petitioners have been found innocent in two successive investigations held by the local police and the Crimes Branch, therefore, it aroused grave doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution and also against the petitioners being the murderers of Abdul Razzaq. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the hatchet recovered from Muhammad Sharif, petitioner, was not found to be stained with blood. He next argued that Muhammad Ishaq, Inayat, Hanif, Yaqoob and Atta Muhammad, notables of the Ilaqa appeared during the investigation and testified to the innocence of the petitioneRs, Lastly, he contended that one Mst. Rashida Bibi who happened to meet the deceased first of all had appeared and told the Investigating Officer that 4n fact it was one Arshad who murdered Abdul Razzaq and in consequence of her statement Arshad was also arrested and later discharged.
6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant vehemently opposed grant of bail to the petitioneRs, According to them, the petitioners were consistently named in the F.I.R. by the eye-witness during the investigation and also in the dying declaration by the victim himself at the earliest stage.
7. I have considered the arguments addressed at the bar with care and also perused the record.
8. No doubt if the police expresses doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution case and declares an accused innocent then a heavy duty is cast on the Court to see if finding of the police was based on genuine material or not and if so found then of course such persons deserve bail. I find that Ishaq, Inayat, Hanif, Yaqoob and Atta Muhammad who allegedly expressed about the innocence of the petitioners had appeared during the investigation for the first time about 14 months after the occurrence. Likewise, Mst. Rashida Bibi had appeared during the investigation after about 4 months of the occurrence, therefore, I think that to believe these witnesses at this stage and consequently to believe that the petitioners are innocent would be premature. The recovery of hatchet even if not found .to be stained with blood, would hardly cause a dent in the prosecution case at the moment. The finding as to the innocence of the petitioners prima facie is not well-founded. I am satisfied, in view of the petitioners having been named in the F.I.R. by the eye-witnesses during the investigation and then in the dying declaration by the deceased himself there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
9. With these observations the petition being without force is dismissed.