On 25-8-1994 at 8-00 p.m. In Chowk Bazar near Chowk Paan Wala, Multan an occurrence took place wherein two persons namely Muhammad Ayyub and Abid Hussain were murdered. F.I.R.
No.200, dated 25-8-1994 was registered at 10-00 p.m. Under sections 302, 148/149, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Sadiq complainant, brother of Abid Hussain deceased. Muhammad Sadiq complainant got recorded in the F.I.R. That he was present at his sugarcane Bailna in Chowk Bazar near Chowk Paanwala, Multan. In front of his shop there was the shop of Muhammad Ayyub deceased on which his brother Abid Hussain deceased was also sitting with him while both of them were talking. Meanwhile the accused persons namely Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din alias Haji Babu, Ahmad, Liaquat A.I (petitioner-accused) each armed with Khanjar, Amanat A.I armed with hatchet as well as the petitioners-accused Alla-ud-Din, Nihal-ud-Din and Amin-ud-Din each armed with Chhuri came on the shop of Muhammad Ayyub who raised the Lalkara that they would not go unescaped. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din co-accused inflicted the Khanjar blows on the person of Muhammad Ayyub deceased which fell on the right arm and chest. Ahmad co--accused gave the Khanjar blows which hit the back head, throat and left shoulder of Abid Hussain. Liaquat accused- petitioner gave the Khanjar blows on the abdomen and forehead of Muhammad Ayyub deceased who also gave the Khanjar blow on the left buttock of Abid Hussain deceased. Amanat co-accused gave the hatchet blows on the left thigh and left wrist of Muhammad Ayyub deceased and also gave the hatchet blow on the back of Abid Hussain deceased. The petitioner-accused Alla-ud-Din, Nihal-ud-Din and Amin-ud-Din each armed with Chhuri remained raising the Lalkaras to the effect that whosoever would come close will have to face the dire consequences and due to that he could not go close to the occurrence. Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Yasin P. Ws. Also saw the occurrence. Muhammad Ayyub and Abid Hussain expired. The motive for.The occurrence is stated to be that Muhammad Ayyub deceased had the dispute of Khokha with accused persons regarding which the civil suit was pending in a Court of law and preventive proceedings were conducted and that all the accused persons who were related inter se in prosecution of common object murdered Muhammad Ayyub and Abid Hussain.
2. Alla-ud-Din, Nihal-ud-Din and Amin-ud-Din petitioners, who have been attributed the role of Lalkara, filed their application before the lower Court for their admission to bail which was dismissed. They filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1941/B of 1994 for their admission to bail before this Court which was dismissed on 9-2-1995.
3. After completing the investigation the police concerned submitted the challan for the prosecution of the accused persons including the petitioners-- accused on 27-3-1995. The accused persons were charged on 30-4-1995 on two counts under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. By Mahr Ghulam Farid Naul, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. The present position is that five P. Ws.
Have been examined during the trial by the said Court of Session and tomorrow (4-3-1996) is the next date for recording the remaining prosecution evidence.
4. After submission of the challan on 27-3-1995 and framing of charge on 30-4-1995 fresh investigation was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Multan who has declared Alla-ud-Din, Nihal-ud-Din, Amin-ud---Din and Liaquat petitioners-accused as innocent.
Thereafter the aforesaid four petitioners-accused made their application before the trial Court for their admission to bail which has been dismissed. Hence this petition with the same desire.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that except Liaquat A.I petitioner the remaining petitioners-accused have been attributed the proverbial role of Lalkara who have been declared as innocent during the investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Multan and thus their case along with Liaquat A.I petitioner-accused who has also been declared as innocent has become that of further inquiry. He maintained that Alla-ud-Din has been declared as innocent as his plea of alibi has been accepted which has been proved through the statement of a lady doctor with whom the wife of the said petitioner remained as she was in the family way when the said petitioner was also present there.
He maintained that the petitioners cannot be detained as a punishment: On the contrary the contention of the learned counsel for the State is that on the basis of the same evidence the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Multan has given a contrary view who cannot sit as appellate authority of both the Investigating Officers who initially investigated the case and held the petitioners as the accused of the case. He added that about the role of Lalkara the view has already been expressed by this Court on 9-2-1995 when the petition for the admission of the concerned three petitioners-accused to bail was dismissed. I am of the view that it is not a case for the admission of these four petitioners accused to bail. As rightly expressed by the learned State Counsel the view about the raising of the Lalkara has already been expressed by this Court while dismissing the bail plea of the aforesaid three concerned petitioners-accused on A, 9-2-1995 who have not been given any concession in the matter which has been reiterated today. On the basis of the previous findings on this aspect of the matter no contrary view can be expressed and the same has fizzled out.
6. With respect to the reinvestigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Multan suffice it to express that the view about the innocence of the four petitioners-accused has been expressed by him on the basis of the same evidence collected by the two Investigating Officers earlier. He cannot sit as an Appellate Authority even though he is a superior Police Officer.
Further in the instant case the challan was submitted on 27-3-1995 and the charge was framed against the petitioners-accused as well as their co-accused on 30-4-1995 while the opinion about the innocence of the four petitioners was expressed on 26-8- 1995 by the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Multan. The belated investigation of a case- has to be curbed especially when there is an amendment in the procedural and substantive law through the incorporation of proviso to subsection 1(b) of section 173, Criminal Procedure Code through Ordinance No. XXV of 1992 made operative with effect from 12-12-1992. According to this provision of law after the lapse of a period of 14 days from the date of recording of the first information report in case the investigation is not completed, within a period of next three days the interim challan has to be submitted by the police before the Area Magistrate who has to decide whether or not to start the trial. In the instant matter the challan was submitted on 27-3-1995 and the accused persons including the petitioners were charge-sheeted on 30-4-1995 under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. On two counts. The wisdom behind the introduction/incorporation of proviso to subsection 1(b) of section 173, Cr.P.C. Is the creation of a sort of check/restraint/censorship upon the police working as the protracted investigation, especially through transfer of investigation, is one of the reasons whereby the law and order situation is worsening in the Province. It is also lowering the authority, and prestige of the concerned Station House Officers) of the Police Station(s) vis-a--vis the accused person(s). It is a matter of common sense that after the transfer/change of the investigation, as according to law a case can be reinvestigated, the different view is generally expressed by the new Investigating Officer about the facts of the occurrence and fate of the same. In the instant matter there are eye-witnesses who saw the occurrence. The investigation of this case was completed and the challan was submitted on 27-3- 1995. The accused were charge-sheeted on 30-4-1995. Thereafter there was no justification to further process with the investigation which was nothing but to help the accused persons as the version of the prosecution was contained in the challan indictment submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. According to me the view, which is for the betterment of the society at the present time, when the law and order situation is worsening, must be given the weight and followed. After the charge has been framed by the trial Court, the exception and the cross-version, if any, can be agitated by the accused persons during the cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses and the benefit of the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Crimes Branch, Multan cannot be granted to them at this stage while disposing of this application. This free hand cannot be allowed to a Police Officer of any rank otherwise there would be judicial anarchy resulting in administrative chaos. The different opinion of the Investigating Officers on the basis of which the petitioners are relying cannot be termed as sacrosanct as there are different opinions of the Investigating Officers.
Now the matter is with the trial Court which is the best Judge to reach at the right conclusion according to the evidence to be adduced by the parties and the stand to be taken by them. The opinion of the Superintendent of Police, Crimes- Branch, as such, is ignored which is of no help to the four petitioners-accused.
7. For what has been said above, I see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
8. Before parting with this order I have to express that it is simply alarming and surprising that the accused persons were charge-sheeted on 30-4-1995 while till today only five P. Ws. Have been examined. The case is fixed for recording the remaining evidence on 4-3-1996. The due sanctity must be granted to the Sessions trial, which should not be dealt with like a theft case. The session trials should be given seriousness, which they deserve. The trial Court should fix these cases on specified days in a week and should not crowd the cause-list for those days. The attention of the trial Court is drawn towards the instructions contained in Part B, Chapter XXIV, High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, Mahr Ghulam Farid Naul, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan is directed to conclude the trial till 22-4-1996 positively under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court.