The facts leading to this revision briefly are that on 28-5-1985 case under section 307/506/427/34, P.P.C. And 3, 4, 6, Explosive Substances Act was registered on the report of Muhammad Ghaus Shah petitioner No.2 against Lal Hussain Shah and two others at Police Station Karor of District Leiah vide F.I.R. No.170/85. According to the F.I.R. The occurrence was also seen by Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Waris P.Ws. The case was investigated by different police officers/officials. The case was investigated by D.S.P. Taunsa Sharif, D.S.P. Headquarter Dera Ghazi Khan and lastly by Inspector Crime Branch, Lahore. The Inspector Crime Branch, Lahore on the basis of evidence collected by him came to the conclusion that Muhammad Ghaus Shah first informant, his son Nazar Abbas petitioner No.3 and Ghulam Hussain petitioner No.1 had committed the crime in order to falsely involve Muhammad Shah and Lal Hussain Shah against whom they had motive to involve them falsely in the case. Muhammad Waris and Muhammad Rafiq, the eye-witnesses of the occurrence named in the F.I.R. In their statements before the Inspector Crime Branch, Lahore have refused to support the version of the occurrence given in the F.I.R. And have named the petitioners as real culprits. Ultimately the challan was submitted against the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Multan. The petitioners moved application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. For their acquittal at the initial stage which was rejected by the learned Judge Special Court on 27-6-1989. Hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in their earlier statements recorded by the D.S.P., Taunsa and D.S.P. Headquarter Dera Ghazi Khan, Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Waris P.Ws. Had named Muhammad Shah and Lal Hussain Shah as accused persons. In their duly attested affidavits they supported the version of the occurrence given in the F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Ghaus Shah petitioner. The investigation was then transferred to the Crime Branch, Lahore and was entrusted to Mulazim Hussain Inspector who was inimical towards the petitioners and that it was after more than a year of the occurrence that P.Ws. Namely Muhammad Waris and Muhammad Rafiq implicated the petitioners in their statements recorded by the Inspector Crime Branch. Learned counsel argued that in view of the contradictory statements made by the two aforesaid eye-witnesses there was/is no probability of the petitioners being convicted of any offence.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The challan has already been submitted in the Court concerned against the petitioners. The prosecution proposes to examine witnesses including Muhammad Waris and Muhammad Rafiq.
No doubt the two eye--witnesses namely Muhammad Waris and Muhammad Rafiq have made divergent statements but the trial Court is competent to believe anyone of these statements. It is premature to say as to which of the three statements made before the police was/is false. The affidavits of the eye-witnesses arc no legal evidence. The trial Court has yet to record and appreciate the statements of the prosecution witnesses, who arc yet to be confronted with their earlier statements. It is neither permissible nor desirable to pre-empt the functions and duties of the trial Court. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner moved by them under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
For what has been said above, the revision fails and is dismissed.
N.H.Q./G-387/L