MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASL J. This application under Section 497 (5) Cr.P.C, has been moved by Ali Asghar Shah complainant in the case F LR. No. 84, dated 17.8.1996 registered under Section 302/34 P.P.C, with police station Rango, District Attock for the cancellation of to the respondents, namely, Naseem Khan and Manzoor Hussain Shah, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Attock vide order dated 31.3.1997.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as contained in the F.I.R, are that Mst. Noor Fatima, the paternal aunt of the complainant, was seen lying dead by Syed Umar Faruq Shah, who informed about the sad death of lady to Syed Ishtiaq Hussain Shah, brother of the complainant. On the report of complainant, case was registered against the respondents and during the investigation it transpired that they were responsible for causing injuries to the deceased lady. The allegedly approached the witness, namely Syed Umar Faruq Shah and Ali Asghar Shah together on 25.8.1996 and confessing their guilt before them stated that in order to extract money from Mst. Noor Fatima, they through strangulation and causing injuries with sickle caused death of old lady. The sickle belonging to the deceased allegedly used in the occurrence was recovered from Manzoor Hussain Shah, the investigating officer having collected the evidence of tracker and extra-judicial confession in addition to medical evidence challaned the respondents. Learned Additional Sessions Judge having found no reasonable ground to believe that the respondents were guilty of commission of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life extended them concession of bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence of extra-judicial confession coupled with the recovery of sickle from Manzoor Hussain Shalt respondent and cash of Rs 35/- in addition to the medical evidence and evidence of tracker sufficiently connects the respondents with the commission of offence and that the complainant having no enmity against the respondent had no reason to implicate then in a false case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in absence of any other corroborating and convincing evidence, the extra-judicial confession itself being not sufficient for conviction, the liberty of the respondent is not curtailed. He submitted that the respondents having not misused the bail are not disentitled to enjoy the concession of bail.
5. Learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State adopting the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner supported the cancellation of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegations against the respondents rest on circumstantial evidence of extra-judicial confession, the evidence of tracker, medical and recovery of blood-stained sickle from Manzoor Hussain Shah accused. The witnesses of extra-judicial confession deposed that on the fateful day immediately after the occurrence, they have seen the two respondents near the place of occurrence and therefore with an interval of about eight days, they conferred their guilt before them. Without judging the evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession, it can safely be observed that unless the admissibility of the alleged joint extra-judicial confession is determined, the identification of respondents as culprits of the occurrence on the basis of ev idence of tracker and medical is not possible. The evidence of tracker could simply lead the investigating officer to the house of the respondents, but it cannot be helpful to identify the culprits. Similarly, the medical evidence can trace the nature of weapon used in the occurrence and the injuries sustained by the victim, but it cannot locate the accused. The recovery of blood-stained sickle from Manzoor Hussain Shah in absence of any other evidence to connect him with the commission of offence, may not be sufficient proof of guilt.
7. Considering the nature of evidence in the hand of prosecution and the attending circumstances, unless some evidence is recorded, it is difficult ;o fix the responsibility of respondents of commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life at this stage.
Consequently, rhe allegations against them requiring further inquiry, they have earned a right for giant of hail by virtue of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in their favour did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity.
There is no allegation of misuse of the concession of bail and, therefore, the interference by this Court being not called for, this application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.