This is an application for the cancellation of bail of Gulzar Khan respondent granted to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujar Khan on 2-7-1996 in a case registered under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Gulzar Khan respondent accompanied by Arshad Mahmood armed with pistols and Babar Hussain, empty-handed attacked Muhammad Younis deceased while he was grazing goats in the field. Arshad Mahmood fired the first pistol shot hitting the deceased on his right flank. Gulzar Khan respondent fired the second shot hitting on the back of his left shoulder. The occurrence was sequel to a quarrel taking place between the parties a day prior to the occurrence.
3. It was argued before the learned trial Court that the respondent had been falsely roped in and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular version about the role ascribed to him in the occurrence. No entry wound was found on the left shoulder of the deceased as alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, an exit wound was found which was the result of injury No. l attributed to Arshad Mahmood. Furthermore during investigation the respondent had been found innocent and placed in Column No.2 of the challan.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his prayer for the cancellation of bail of Gulzar Khan states that the opinion of the police is not binding upon the Court and the fact that he is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role in the occurrence establishes his participation in the occurrence.
5. Though Gulzar Khan respondent was alleged to have fired a pistol shot at the deceased hitting him on the back of left shoulder but no such injury was found on the person of the deceased during his post-mortem examination. Besides this he was found innocent during investigation. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding upon the Court but in the present case there are circumstances which support the finding of the Investigating Officer particularly the medical report. There should be genuine reasons to reject the finding of the Investigating Officer about the innocence of the accused because such finding coming from an Officer Investigating Agency deserves serious consideration. The mere fact that the prosecution witnesses insist on the involvement of an accused in the case may not be sufficient to brush aside the finding of the Investigating Officer, based on material produced before him by both the parties in support of their respective versions.
6. The precedent cases cited by the learned counsel cannot be made applicable to the case in hand because they proceed on distinguishable facts.