ORDER MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, J.- Abdul Rahman and Fazal-ur-Rehman sons of Muhammad Ramzan and Khalid Khan S/o Fateh Khan have involvement in a murder case, that was registered at P.S. Saddar, Mianwali, on 18.9.193, on the statement of Ata Muhammad, whose son Muhammad Ramzan was done away with, allegedly by the accused persons, who were all armed with 12 bore guns. They had a land dispute with the complainant and they proclaimed that they would teach the complainant's son Ramzan a lesson for laying a claim to the land. Injuries with butts of their guns were also caused to the complainant by the accused. In injured condition, Muhammad Ramzan was removed to the Civil Hospital. He was then referred to Nishtar Hospital, Multan, where he succumbed to his injuries. A case has originally been registered u/Ss. 324/34, PPC and on Muhammad Ramzan's death, the offence was converted into one u/S. 302, PPC.
2. Learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, vide order dated 13.6.1994, dismissed the bail petition of all the three accused persons, and they have approached this Court for the same relief. They have a cross version. Khalid Khan, one of them is stated to have seriously been injured in the course of the same transaction. One Muhammad Amir had on 26.12.1993 filed a private complaint under sec.
302/324/34, PPC against for person, Muhammad Ibrahim. Pir Muhammad, Muhammad Ashraf and Sabir. Muhammad Amir, Private complainant, is son of Abdul Rehman. He states to have in the morning on 18.9.1993 come out of his house to bid fare well to his guests, Khalid Khan and Ghulam Abbas, when Ibrahim etc., who were sitting in ambush, challenged them and made a murderous assault, with the lethal weapons they were all armed with. One, however, fails to follow the rationale of the act of the accused. If Muhammad Amir or his father was the intended target, how did they remain safe, and why and how as an unconcerned person, Muhammad Ramzan S/o Ata Muhammad, hit instead, and for what purpose Muhammad Ramzan was present around, while he had equipped himself with a pistol. Khalid Khan, who with Ghulam Abbas, had spent the night as guest in the house of Muhammad Amir was also injured in firing indulged in by Ibrahim etc. Motive for the murderous assault, as stated by Muhammad Amir, was that Ibrahim's son and Pir Muhammad's brother had been challaned in a case under the Arms Ordinance. They suspected that Muhammad Amir's father Abdur Rehman was responsible for that. Witnesses of the occurrence according to Muhammad Amir were Khalid Khan and Abbas sons of Fateh Khan one Hamid Ullah Khan, besides Muhammad Amir complainant himself.
3. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant (in the police case) that the two eye-witnesses cited by Muhammad Amir are his real maternal uncles. They are Khalid Khan and Abbas Khan. Third witness Hamid Ullah Khan is paternal uncle of Muhammad Amir and the story they have narrated is in the nature of an after thought, having been devised as a defence plea, and it is a trumped-up version, which on the face of it is inapt and absurd. Anyhow, genuineness of this cross version will be examined and adjudicated upon in trial. How could the version given by Ata Muhammad complainant, father of Muhammad Ramzan deceased, in promptly-lodged FIR (No. 155 dated 18.9.1993) be disbelieved and a counter version that has come on record, more than three months after the occurrence, be believed, and extra-ordinary indulgence of enlargement of the accused involved in a murder case be extended to them. Merely on the strength of a hypothesis, which does not appeal to reason, and simply because a person on the other side, Khalid Khan by name, had also sustained an injury would not justify plausibility or credibility of their counter version.
4. Learned Sessions Judge has taken note of the submissions made by the learned Law Officer to the effect that Khalid Khan, who had been hospitalised after the occurrence, had slipped away from the hospital without informing the doctor, and the object was to evade arrest, as he had been named as an accused in the murder case. The investigating officer could not take down his statement; and it will, therefore, be wrong to say that his version was intentionally not brought on record by the investigating officer. All the three accused had specifically been named in the FIR, with active and specific role having been assigned to all of them in the FIR, which was lodged with such promptitude that there was hardly any room for deliberations and consultations, it has been so observed by the learned Sessions Judge; and I find myself inclined to agree with him. Finding no good ground for admittance of the accused to bail, I would dismiss the bail petition.