The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 302, P.P.C. Arising out of F.I.R. No.184/94, dated 4-9-1994, registered at Police Station Township, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. As per F.I.R., the petitioner is alleged to have burnt the body of his wife Mst. Nasim Akhtar on 18-8- 1994. Thereafter, she was admitted in Services Hospital, Lahore and died on 29-8-1994, there.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the occurrence took place on 18-8-1994 and the F.I.R.
Was lodged on 4-9-1994. The petitioner who is the husband of Mst. Nasim Akhtar deceased admitted her in the hospital on 18-8-1994; she remained there till 29-8-1994, when she died.
Thereafter the deceased was buried. After the burial, the F.I.R. Was lodged and this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained. The petitioner was found innocent by Bashir Ahmad, SI of Township Police Station and that innocence of the petitioner was affirmed by Zulfiqar, DSP in his investigation and thereafter Masood-ul-Hassan, SP too found the petitioner as innocent, who opined that possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have committed suicide, though according to the opinion of the police it was a case of accidental death. During this period, the petitioner remained associated with the investigation, but he was not arrested as there was not sufficient material on the file to connect him with the crime.
It is submitted that during the admission of the deceased in Services Hospital, Lahore, Dr. Tariq Rahman gave injury statement to the police and after the investigation was transferred to the DIG Range Crime, Muhammad Shoaib, Inspector came to the contrary opinion on the basis of statement of Dr. Tariq Rehman and found the petitioner involved in this case and the petitioner was arrested on 16-5-1996. The said Inspector before forming his opinion on 20-3-1996, sought opinion from Dr. Tariq Rehman on 19-3-1996 and on the basis of his statement, he formally made up his mind on 20-3-1996 to arrest the petitioner. Then the file was sent to the local police. It was received in the police station on 15-5-1996 and on the basis of recommendation of the Inspector, the petitioner was arrested on 16-5-1996. Learned counsel submits that in the presence of the material referred to above, as the petitioner was found innocent during three successive investigations hence the case against him is one of further inquiry, as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence whether the stand taken by the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased lady, was correct or not. Placed reliance on 1970 SCM R 299 and 1970 PCr.LJ 450.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and the police officer has opposed this bail application. He submitted that the petitioner being the husband of the deceased lady did not attend her funeral rites and there is some motive with the petitioner to commit the crime.
Learned counsel for the complainant elaborating the motive submitted that the petitioner is a greedy man and there is evidence on the record that the complainant who is the mother of the deceased, by way of general power of attorney transferred a house in the name of her daughter at Township on 2-12-1993. The petitioner approached Shaiq Siddiq, petition-writer/Advocate on 21-5- 1995, and apprised him that during the shifting of household articles, the said general power of attorney was lost and he made Report No.24, on 24-12-1994, in the concerned police station. This according to the learned counsel completely demolishes the defence plea of the petitioner and proves that the petitioner had a motive to commit the murder of his wife in order to grab her property, which was actually sold by him on 21-5-1995. The petitioner was last seen in the company of her deceased wife and according to the statement of Dr. Tariq Rehman dated 19-3-1996, the deceased had no burns on her fingers and palm which corroborates the prosecution version that the deceased did not die due to accidental fire, as alleged by the petitioner. During the first investigation, Bashir Ahmad, SI took into possession, hair of the deceased, curtain and Chaddar, all burnt from the drawing room which gives credence to the prosecution version that actually she was burnt in the drawing room. The theory of suicide invented by the S.P. Does not get any confirmation from the circumstances brought on the file, as the petitioner did not join the last funeral rites of the deceased; later on the petitioner sold the house of the deceased which proves that he had the motive to commit the crime; hence their exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause and he is not entitled to the grant of bail. Placed reliance on NLR 1996 Cr.LJ 163, 1994 SCM R 1147, 1990 SCMR 79 and 1983 PCr.LJ 2545.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record minutely.
Admittedly, it is an unwitnessed crime, as the sole eye-witness has been made accused in this case. The petitioner took up the plea before the first I.O. That his deceased wife caught fire accidentally while she was boiling milk and he tried his level best to save her life but she was extensively burnt. This plea of the petitioner was accepted by three I.Os. Up to the level of S.P.
Crimes. The plea of extra judicial confession before Iftikhar Khan and Abdus Samad, mentioned in the FIR seems to be an afterthought as that confessional statement was allegedly made by the petitioner on 1-9-1994, whereas the FIR was recorded on 4-9-1994 and statements of those witnesses were recorded on 5-9-1994. Till that time, the complainant had no suspicion against the petitioner that he committed the crime. Later on, the investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Shoaib Inspector, under the orders of the D.I.G. Range Crime, who interrogated Dr. Tariq Rehman and put certain queries to him and on the basis of replies to those queries he formed the opinion that it is a case of blind murder. There are two versions available on the file, as aforesaid. The version of innocence of the petitioner is supported by the three I.Os; whereas Muhammad Shoaib Inspector found the petitioner involved in the case; hence on the basis of the material so far collected by the police, the case against the petitioner seems to be one of further inquiry in view of conflicting opinion of the police. Even otherwise, there is no direct evidence of murder against the petitioner, but the case against him hinges on the circumstantial evidence. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. Model Town, Lahore.