' This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha who vide his order, dated 9-2-1998 dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11-7-1993 at 3-00 p.m. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 while armed with fire-arm criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant. Muhammad Azam fired a shot which hit Saleh Muhammad father of the complainant on his chest while the shot fired by Zafar hit Saleh Muhammad on his left wrist. Muhammad Ozair respondent also fired at Muhammad Bakhsh uncle of the complainant but the same did not hit him and passed through the clothes and the cot and he was saved. In the instant case, three investigations took place, one by local S.H.O., respondents were found innocent then by S.I., respondents were also found innocent and ultimately, by S.P. Range Crime and he also came to the similar findings as mentioned above.
3. It may also be mentioned here, that as far as respondents Nos.6 to 8 are concerned, the allegation against them is that they have abetted this occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that findings of the police is not binding on this Court, that it was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R., that opinion of the police officer could not be given such a weight, that deeper appreciation of evidence could not have been done by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in an inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C., and it is not a case of regular trial. He has relied upon 1988 PCr.LJ 964, 1995 PCr.LJ 530 and 1900 and PLD 1976 Kar.
653.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that case was thoroughly investigated by three different police officers and all were of the view that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, that there was no motive to kill Saleh Muhammad deceased in this case, that although, the opinion of the police officer is not binding on the Court but it is a relevant factor in suchlike cases to decide the criminal revision petition. He further submits that order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer any irregularity or infirmity.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, occurrence took place on 11- 7-1993 and three investigations mentioned above were completed on 19-9-1993. The complainant three years and 5-1/2 months remain sleeping and he filed the complaint in January, 1997 without any plausible explanation that why he kept mum for a such-like period. Although the opinion of the police officers is not binding on the Court but in the instant case the circumstances of the complaint is that it is taken into consideration because in three successive investigations, respondents were found innocent. The occurrence in this case took place at about 3-00 a.m. When there is a complete dark. Moreover, story given in the F.I.R. And in the complaint was that on 19-1- 1993 i,e,, prior to the present occurrence the father of Muhammad Azam and Ozair respondents was murdered by Sarfraz real brother of the complainant and Muhammad Bakhsh real uncle of the complainant and other relations. Both Sarfraz and Muhammad Bakhsh who were later on as P.W., were present at the spot and they were the persons, who had committed the murder of father of Muhammad Asam and Ozair respondents. Not a single injury was present on their persons.
Moreover, the story that one of the accused namely Ozair had also fired shot with his .12 bore gun on the person of Muhammad Bakhsh which is not plausible.
7. It may also be noted here, that Superior Courts are very slow in such-like matters and also when a competent Court pass an acquittal order against the accused persons.
8. I have also gone through the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and the reasons given by him, in my view there is no ground for interfering in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is dismissed.