' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Qadar Mand who was complainant in F.I.R. No,79 of 1994 of Police Station Khawaza Khela, District Swat, has moved for cancellation of to respondents, Muhammad Amroze, Kashar Khan, Sehraney and Kotkey. Allegation against the respondents was, that they on 7-3-1994 at 12.000 noon had murdered petitioner's brother Talimand because he had allegedly cut wood from a Forest for preservation of which a Committee was formed. Names of the respondents appear in the F.I.R. But names of eye-witnesses Wazirazada, Aqloona, Fazal Rabbi and Mst. Gul Dihan are not there. While granting bail to the respondents 1 to 4, learned Single Judge in Chambers appears to have been impressed by the fact that the statements of the eye-witnesses were recorded on 19-3-1994 in respect of the incident dated 7-3-1994 and that the version given by the eye-witnesses was contradictory in nature and could hardly inspire confidence and that report of the Doctor about the injuries was in variance with the ocular evidence.
2. Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Javid A. Khan, counsel for the respondents conceded that police statements of the eyewitnesses were recorded on 8-3-1994 while their 164, Cr.P.C. Statements were recorded on 19-3-1994. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Judge in Chambers had not appreciated that there was sufficient evidence showing that reasonable grounds existed for believing the respondents 1 to 4 to be guilty of the offence of murder which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
3. Learned counsel for the private respondents opposing the application, argued that proper details of the incident and names of the eye-witnesses do not appear in the F.I.R. And that fact of P.W. Wazirzada having been taken by the complainant to the place of incident after the occurrence, indicated that he (Wazirzada) was not an eye-witness although he claimed to be so.
Learned counsel for the private respondents criticized the ocular evidence thinking that this Court can appreciate the evidence at this stage.
4. It is settled position of law that appreciation of evidence cannot take place at bail stage. Want of proper details in the F.I.R. Is not unnatural when it is lodged by somebody who is not an eye- witness. This explains omission of names of eye-witnesses from the F.I.R.
5. In our view, the evidence on record as collected by police, made out reasonable grounds for believing the private respondents to be guilty of the offence allegedly committed by them. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and accept the same and set aside the order about grant of bail and cancel the bail of the private respondents, who are required to be arrested and put behind the bars.
Bail cancelled.