[11-7-751-The facts of this case are given in my previous order dated the 7th of July, 1975. It may be perused along with present order (for text of this order see below). The Revenue record has been produced today and according to it Muhammad Nawaz deceased and his party were in possession of the disputed land. In the light of this record the version of the prosecution would be that the petitioners came as aggressors to take forcible possession of the disputed land whereas complainant side were on the defensive. The attack of the petitioners on the complainant side resulted in two persons dead and four injured on the complainant side whereas one person dead and eight injured on the accused side. According to the prosecution version Muhammad Nawaz deceased was given blows by Matta petitioner No, 1, Muhammad Khan petitioner No, 3, Ahmad petitioner No, 4, and Waryam petitioner No,
5. The blows of these four petitioners are stated to have killed Muhammad Nawaz deceased and, therefore, they are not entitled to bail. Ali deceased according to the prosecution was given blows by Amir petitioner No, 10, Amir petitioner No, 2, Nazra petitioner No, 9 and Sher petitioner No, 11 and as a result All died at their hands. Thus, they are also not entitled to bail. It may be pointed out at this stage that Nazra and Sher petitioners had also caused injuries to Muhammad Ramzan on the complainant side. Anyway Jaffar, Sher Muhammad and Dost Muhammad on the complainant side had sustained simple injuries at the hands of Lal petitioner No, 6, Baksha petitioner No,
7. Bakhsha petitioner No, 13, Amir petitioner No, 16, Ata Muhammad petitioner No, 8, Ghulam Rasul petitioner No, 14, and Lal petitioner No, 12, Muhammad son of Ghulam petitioner No, 15 is not attributed any role in the F. I. R. Since these petitioners did not cause any injuries to the two deceased in this case and if they did cause any injuries to the P. Ws., they were simple in nature. Prima facie they do not appear to have committed an offence punishment of which would be death or transportation for life. They are in the circumstances entitled to be released on bail. It is ordered accordingly. From amongst the petitioners only the followings are admitted to bail. Lal son of Bahoo, petitioner No, 6, Bakhsha son of Lal petitioner No, 7, Ata son of Mir Dad petitioner No, 8, Lal son of Shera petitioner No, 12, Bakhsha son of Yara petitioner No, 13, Ghulam Rasool son of Sardara alias Ladoo, petitioner No, 14, Muhammad son of Ghulam petitioner No, 15, and Amir son of Wasawa petitioner No, 16, subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs, 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Inquiry Magistrate. This petition stands disposed of.
[7-7-751-A case was registered against the petitioners under sections 302/ 149, 307/148 and 362 P.
P. C. On the 9th of March, 1973, at 12 noon at the instance of Dost Muhammad complainant at Police Station Seder Sargodha. The allegation is that all the petitioners armed with hatchets, sotas, barchhas had come to the land which was in possession of Muhammad Nawaz deceased. Etc., and demanded that the possession of the said land should be restored to them. Muhammad Nawaz deceased refused to do so and, therefore, they attacked him. Mahla petitioner No, I gave a hatchet blow to Muhammad Nawaz deceased on the forehead. Muhammad Khan petitioner No, 3 gave a hatchet blow to Muhammad Nawaz deceased on the head. Thereupon, Muhammad Nawaz fell down. While he was in that position Ahmad petitioner No, 4 gave him a barchha blow on the left leg and Waryam petitioner No, 5 gave him sota blows. In the meantime from the complainant side came out on hearing alarm Jaffar, Dost Muhammad, Ali, Muhammad Ramzan and Sher Muhammad armed with sotas and hatchets. Out of them Jaffar was given injuries by Lal petitioner No, 6, Bakhsha petitioner No, 7, Bakhsha petitioner No, 13 and Amir petitioner No,
16. Dost Muhammad on the complainant side was given injuries by Shafi deceased, Ata Muhammad petitioner No, 8 and Ghulam Rasul petitioner No,
14. But Dost Muhammad managed to get a gun out from the dera and fired a shot which hit Shafi on the accused side and led to his death. But the gun was snatched from the hand of Dost Muhammad by the accused party. Thereafter Ahmad petitioner No, 4 gave a barchha blow to Dost Muhammad in the belly. Ali on the complainant side was given blows by Amir petitioner No, 10 and Amir petitioner No,
2. Muhammad Ramzan on the complainant side received injuries at the hands of Nazra petitioner No, 9 and Sher petitioner No, 11.
Sher Muhammad on the complainant side received injuries at the hands of Amir petitioner No, 2, Muhammad petitioner No, 3 and Lal petitioner No,
12. It is stated in the F. I. R. That in the exercise of right of self-defence Dost Muhammad etc. Did cause injuries to some of the members of the accused party. The result was that two persons died on the complainant side, namely, Muhammad Nawaz and Ali whereas four persons were injured, namely Jaffar, Dost Muhammad, Muhammad Ramzan and Sher Muhammad. On the accused side one person died, namely, Shafi and some persons were injured. It may be pointed out that the complainant side lodged F. I. R. No, 56, at .2 noon respecting the occurrence whereas the accused side lodged cross F. I. R. No, 57, at 3.30 p.m. F I. R. No, 57 was subsequently found to be false and it was cancelled. Thereafter; the accused side has filed a complaint case against the complainant side under sections 302/149, 307/148, P. P. C.
The complaint case as well as the challan case are pending before the Committing Magistrate at present. The version in F.
1. R. No, 56 indicates that the complainant side was in possession of disputed land and were attacked by the accused party. Learned counsel for Dost Muhammad complainant has showed to me the revenue record which indicates that Muhammad Nawaz, etc. Were in possession of Square No, 12, Killa No, 17/1 in Rabi 1973, according to Khasra Girdawari when the occurrence took place.
Learned counsel for the petitioners does not accept this fact. His contention is that the accused party were in possession of the disputed land and they were attacked by the complainant side.
Learned counsel for the State had been told at the last hearing that he should see to it that Revenue record should be brought in this Court in order to determine as to which of the parties were in possession of the disputed land at the time of occurrence. Unfortunately, he has not provided any assistance to me on this point. The Revenue record produced by learned counsel for the complainant is not accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has not brought any Revenue Record in support of his contention because it is stated that the State counsel bad undertaken to produce such record. So we stand where we were.
2. I am directing learned counsel for the State as well as for the petitioners to produce the Revenue record on the next date of hearing for the prima facie determination of the point as to which of the two parties were in possession of the disputed land on the day of occurrence. It is also pointed out that the Committing Magistrate has recorded the testimony of all the eyewitnesses in the challan case and they support the version given in F. I. R. No,
56. Learned counsel for the petitioners however states that no evidence has been recorded so far respecting the cross-version by the Committing Magistrate. I am not inclined to look into the testimony of the witnesses on either side of the cross-cases. For my purpose, a glance at the revenue record as to who was in possession at the time of occurrence of the disputed land would determine the matter which is pending before me. The parties are directed to produce that evidence on the 11th of July, 1975.
3. To come up on the 11th of July, 1975.