' Mutl-minad lqbal complainant got recorded F.I.R. No, 151, dated 26-8-1993 a -00 a.m. Under sections 302, 324. 452, 380/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Dhanot, District Lodhran about the murder of his brother Muhammad Ajmal, his Mamoonzad Muhammad Hanif and his father Allah Bachaya when his mother Mst. Karam Mai also received the injuries due to the dispute of landed property.
Muhammad Akram petitioner armed with rifle along with h s co-accused Laal armed with Kalashnikov, Said armed with .12 bore gun are Muhammad lqbal armed with .7 mm rifle is said to have trespassed the house of the complainant. Laal fired with the Kalashnikov which hit Muhammad Ajmal deceased on his mouth, face, abdomen, head and other parts of the body.
Muhammad Akram petitioner fired at Muhammad Hanif which hit his left upper arm, ribs and abdomen. Muhammad lqbal fired at Allah Bachaya which hit his the arms, abdomen and legs. His mother Mst. Karam Mai arrived there who was fired at by Saidu co-accused. Thereafter, the firing was further affected. The accused persons fled away along with the respective weapon who also took away .12 bore licensed gun of Muhammad Afzal son of Manzoor Hussain. The occurrence is said to have been seen by the complainant, Manzoor Hussain, Allah Yar and the injured lady Mst.
Karam Mai. The postmortem examination of the deceased and the medical examination of Mst.
Karam Mai were conducted by the medical witness. The accused persons were arrested on 21-9- 1993. Muhammad Akram petitioner filed his application for his demission to bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Sessions who has filed this petition to try his luck to be admitted to bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. The main contention of the learned counsel for Muhammad Akram petitioner is that Sadiq Hussain alias Sadqi Shah was arrested who was involved in case F.I.R. No,45 of 1994, 46 of 1994 and 47 of 1994 which were registered on 9-4-1994 under section 392/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Sadar Alipur from whom different articles were taken into possession and during the investigation he deposed before the police that he had committed the murder of the three deceased of this case who took away the gun as he had abducted some female of the deceased whose mother-in-law was murdered by Muhammad Ajmal and to wreck the vengeance he had murdered the three deceased of this case when the mother of Muhammad Ajmal complainant was injured. He added that in view of the aforesaid version of Sadiq Hussain alias Saqi Shah the case of the prosecution against these petitioners has become that of further inquiry. On the contrary learned counsel for the complainant and learned State counsel argued that the statement of Sadiq Hussain alias Sadqi Shah accused of the other case about his confession is inadmissible in evidence which need not be given the weight and that the investigation is being twisted by the Investigating Officer. According to them the prosecution has to produce the evidence of motive, ocular evidence and the medical evidence and that the whimsical opinion of the Investigating Officer cannot he given the legal weight. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that it is not a case for the admission of the petitioner to bails. It is the statutory law of our country that the confession of an accused before the police is inadmissible in evidence. In this regard Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat. 1984 is referred to. Without prejudice my view is that the personal whims and figment of brain of the concerned Investigation Officer are the basis of his opinion involving Sadiq Hussain alias Sadqi Shah accused of the other case in this case. Legally the evidence to be produced during the trial to which the complainant party is still sticking has to steal the eminence i,e, according to the recitals of the F.I.R. The accused are named in the F.I.R. Which was registered promptly by the police. The specific roles have been attributed to the accused. It is a gruesome occurrence wherein three persons lost their lives and one female was injured. There is no ground for the admission of Muhammad Akram petitioner to bail. No other point was argued before me.
3. I, therefore, dismiss this petition.