The brief facts of the case are that four persons were killed by the police in an encounter which took place near Shadiwai, District Gujrat. The killed persons were of 16/18 years of age and as contended belonged to very poor family and were daily labourers. It is an admitted fact that except Irfan alias Pappu, rest three killed persons were never involved in any criminal case. It is also admitted fact that the arms recovered nearby the dead bodies of killed persons were obsolete and outdated. The arms were mousars, .7 mm, .303 rifles and .222 bore rifle. It is also an admitted fact that heavy contingents of police including one headed by Rana Abdul Wasay, S.S.P., Gujrat and one headed by D.S.P., Wazirabad chased the accused persons and all the police contingents and persons were fully in contact to each other through wireless. The police was equipped with modern weapons.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no reasonable and prudent person can believe that the persons killed after snatching a tractor-trolly would drive the same on G.T. Road and try to go through Chanab River bridge which is always manned by heavy contingent of police instead of using secret road; further snatched suzuki motor-cycle on gun point from S.I.
Muhammad Arif, M.C.P.O. Highway Traffic on the bridge; the whole story advanced by the police appears to be fabricated, doubtful and unbelievable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as alleged the killed persons used two hand-gernades and four arms in daylight on huge contingency of police equipped with modern weapons, but none of the police person has received even a slightest injury which itself establishes that no such encounter took place. If for the sake of arguments, any such encounter took place, the police over acted and could have easily apprehended them without killing them. Learned counsel relied upon the newspapers reporting about the occurrnece according to which no such encounter took place and the news were not contradicted and the Reporters had neither malice against the police nor had any relationship with the killed persons but performed duty honestly and impartially as a journalist.
3. Respondent No,1, S.S.P., Gujrat vide report and parawise comments, dated 26-9-1994 on factual position supported the prosecution version narrated in F.I.R. No,182, dated 5-7-1994, Police Station Kunjah. Respondent No,1 is present in Court. He justified the encounter as genuine as according to him the persons killed had fired upon the police and the police retaliated in self-defence. He pointed out that Irfan alias Pappu, one of the killed persons, was involved in as many as 13 cases at various police stations in offences like 392/394, P.P.C. And 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 but conceded that the other three deceased had no previous record. He stated that newspapers twisted the facts at the instance of the relatives of the deceased including the petitioner. He informed the Court that a judicial inquiry conducted by Malik Bashir Ahmad Awan, Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat has been received and the case would be disposed of in view of the inquiry report. A copy of the inquiry report has been placed on the file. The judicial inquiry was held on the directive of Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat vide order, dated 15-8-1994. Inquiry report consists on 44 pages and was submitted to the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat whose endorsement on the report, dated 26-9-1994 is reproduced as under:-- "I am in agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, copies be endorsed to Home Department, Inspector-General of Punjab, Commissioner, Gujranwala, and the S.S.P., Gujrat."
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents as well as S.S.P., Gujrat and have perused the inquiry report with their able assistance.
5. The learned Inquiry Officer highlighted various aspects of the encounter and made recommendations for necesasry actions.
6. The learned Inquiry Officer during inquiry also received a letter in which details of the occurrence were given by some unknown person. He after narrating the details of inquiry and highlighting various issues and recommendations for disciplinary action, wound up the inquiry by showing his inability to give his verdict on the issues that whether the police used arms exceeding right of self- defence and could have arrested the deceased alive by saying that being Judicial Officer he could not give his own findings as it would damage the cause of justice and being in the capacity of Judge would become a witness and then he noted his personal experience of an encounter at Mianwali.
7. The way, the Inquiry Officer has avoided to give his verdict as well as the endorsement of the District Magistrate, Gujrat, dated 26-9-1994 in summary manner, indicates either their incompetency and lack of decision power or were under some great pressure. Whatever it may be, the report is incomplete and serves no purpose of holding an inquiry. The highlighted aspects and the recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer and further the endorsement made by the District Magistrate without applying his mind to the report, has created further complications and the encounter has become doubtful.
8. I have taken very serious view of the way in which the enquiry has been conducted by a Judicial Officer and endorsement by the District Magistrate. They only to save their skin shifted burden to others making the issue more complicated and doubtful. The purpose of such enquiry does not mean to get time to cool down passions and hide highhandedness of someone but is to give prompt finding to meet the ends of justice.
9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, a copy of the writ petition be sent to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab who shall depute the D.I.-G. Range Crimes, Lahore to probe in the matter and if respondents 2 to 7 are found guilty, a criminal case be registered against them under the relevant sections of law. The respondents in the meanwhile shall be transferred from their present places of posting so that they may not influence or hamper the investigation.
' A copy of this order shall also be sent to the Chief Secretary, Punjab to look into the conduct of his subordinates and take necessary steps under intimation to this Court.
' With the observations and directions made above, the writ petition stands disposed.