' Andean Shabbir, Muhammad Ishaq tie, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Yar, Muhammad Abbas and Ghulam filed this petition under section 215, Cr. P. C. Read with section 561-A, Cr. P. C. For quashing the commitment proceedings and order dated 30th of October, 1975, passed by the Magistrate First Class, Chunian.
2. Rajada, complainant, a brother of Ali Muhammad deceased, made statement Exh. P. A. Before Muhammad Yaqoob S. H.
0. On 12th September, 1971, at about 11 a.m. This statement was sent at Police Station, Pattoki, and the formal F. I. R., Bah. P. A./1, was recorded. The case was investigated and challan submitted against the six petitioners. Enquiry was held and the Committing Magistrate found a prima fade case against all the petitioners under section 302/34, P. P. C. And he committed them to the Court of Session, vide order dated 30th of October, 1975.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the evidence of this case recorded by the Committing Magistrate. Rajada (P. W. 2) stated before the Committing Magistrate that a or 21 years ago, at 10 a. m., he was present at his Dena along with his brother Ali Muhammad deceased, Khushia and Amir, Ghulam Shabbir, petitioner came there and told Ali Mohd. Deceased that he was wanted by Ishaq and Muhammad Hussain, petitioners. Ali Muhammad deceased took his pistol and licence and accompanied Ghulam Shabbir petitioner. The deceased did not return. The witness further stated that on the next day, he inquired from Ghulam Shabbir in the morning about the deceased, whereupon Ghulam Shabbir informed him that Ishaq and Muhammad Hussain petitioners, had taken away the deceased to Sialkot. The witness further stated that he had been inquiring from the accused but did not get any clue about his brother. He was informed on the 12th of September, 1971 by Amir P. W. That Ali Muhammad had been done to death and his dead body was lying in the courtyard of Syed Zamir Hussain. On receipt of the said information, he accompanied by Amir and Shahabal went to the courtyard of Syed Zamir Hussain and found the dead body of his brother which had injuries on his person. Ghulam Shabbir P. W. Pointed out stains of blood on a wall of a house which was occupied by him and Muhammad Ishaq petitioner. The stains of blood were scraped and sealed into a parcel. Ghulam Shabbir got recovered blood- stained earth from the same residential house and it was sealed into a parcel. Ghulam Shabbir produced a piece of gunny bag from the roof of his residential house which was sealed into a parcel. Ghulam Shabbir led to the recovery of blood-stained arms, legs of bed, pillow cover, cover of the licence of the deceased etc. He also produced a pair of shoes of the deceased. So far as the case of Ghulam Shabbir is concerned, there is ample evidence on the record. Rajada complainant stated in Court that in his presence, Shabbir had come to his house and told Ali Muhammad deceased that he was wanted by Ishaq and Muhammad Hussain petitioner and the deceased accompanied Ghulam Shabbir taking with him pistol and licence. On the next day, Rajada complainant inquired from Ghulam Shabbir petitioner, about the deceased and Ghulam Shabbir informed him that Ishaq and Muhammad Hussain petitioners, had taken away Ali Muhammad deceased to Sialkot. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rajada complainant improved upon his first version, which he gave in Exh. P. A. He specifically referred the portion of his statement Exh. P. A. Wherein Rajada mentioned that Ghulam Shabbir told Ali Muhammad that a person connected with Muhammad Hussain had summoned him, and Ali Muhammad accompanied Ghulam Shabbir. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it was a case of no evidence and the learned Magistrate committed illegality in framing charge against the petitioners under sections 302/34, P. P. C. And passing an order of commitment.
I find evidence on record against Muhammad Hussain and Ishaq petitioners also. Under the provisions of section 215, Cr. P. C. Commitment can be quashed only, and only on a point of law.
This Court is only required to apply its mind to the question whether, assuming the facts as proved, they do justify the commitment of the accused or not. Undoubtedly, commitment order can be quashed if the case is committed on no evidence. This Court is not required to go into the sufficiency or credibility of evidence. Since the evidence has come on record against Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Ishaq petitioners also justifying the framing of charge and passing an order of commitment, I do not consider it a fit case for quashing the commitment proceedings. The petition fill by Ghulam Shabbir, Muhammad Ishaq and Muhammad Hussain for quashing the commitment order is dismissed.
4. There was absolutely no evidence against Muhammad Yar, Muhammad Abbas and Ghulam petitioners connecting them with the murder of the deceased. Their petition is accepted and the commitment order passed against them, is quashed.