1. RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, C.J.---The grievance of the petitioner is that, deliberately, partial investigation in respect of the commission of offence was conducted by the Investigating Officer in order to extend benefit to the nominated accused. Further his case is that the true picture of the incident has been narrated by one of the ocular witnesses of the occurrence namely, Ghulam Mustafa, who through- out was present on the spot and witnessed the incident supported by the remaining cited ocular witnesses i,e, Khalil Ahmed, Badal Khan and Muhammad Rafique. Further the case of the petitioner is that, F.I.R. Pursuant to the alleged Fard-e-Biyan of the injured, who subsequently succumbed to injuries was not correctly recorded because at the relevant time, the injured/victim of the offence was unconscious and such fact also finds support from the entries as contained in the M.L.C. It may be noted that, after having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the Ziminies produced by the Investigating Officer before the Court on direction of the Court and the statements recorded during course of investigation Medical Officer, District Headquarter Hospital, Turbat was directed to produce the Medico-legal Register, which he produced today and has been perused. The entries made in the M.L.C. Find support from the original record. Also perusal of the statement of P.W. Ghualm Mustafa recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. By the Investigating Officer shows that definite role and participation of the nominated accused in the commission of the crime has been attributed/assigned to the accused, but the stated version of the victim of the offence as contained in his Fard-e-Biyan is in conflict with the ocular account of the incident given. P.W. Ghulam Mustafa and the other abovesaid P.Ws.
2. Examined by the Investigating Officer under section 161, Cr.P.C. Moreover, in the M.L.C. It has been shown that at the relevant time when the victim was examined by the doctor, he was unconscious. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as it emerge and exist on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is a case of its own nature in which re- investigation is required to be conducted by a competent and honest Police Officer by attending to all the material aspects and angles of the case in order to find out the truth. The learned counsel also submitted that it was required and essential that F.I.R. Should have been registered in view of the statement of P.W. Ghulam Mustafa, who narrated about the occurrence in detail and ascribed positive role to the accused already nominated in the case. Mr. Amir Raza Naqvi learned counsel argued on all the points involved in the matter in depth and in support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the reported Judgments of the Hon'ble superior Courts i,e, 2000 SCMR 453, PLD 1997 Karachi 119. Also the learned counsel cited a case reported on the subject in PLD 1997 Karachi 600, wherein different view was formed by the Hon'ble Karachi High Court to the one reported in the judgment PLD 1997 Karachi 119, keeping in view the facts of the case as well as dilating upon the category of the cases in which second F.I.R. Can be registered.
3. Mr. Ashraf Khan Tanoli, the learned Advocate-General, Balochistan on having gone through the Police Investigation file and the documents available on record, in view of the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 2000 SCMR 453, made a categorical statement that, further investigation keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner would be undertaken by a competent, impartial and honest Police Officer in order to reach to the truth for which he submitted that the petitioner also to extend fullest cooperation and to produce any further evidence that may be needed or required subject to permissibility and after completion of the further investigation within the period of one month from the date of the commencement, final report/result of the investigation as the case may be, alongwith all necessary and required documents would be submitted before the learned trial Court.
4. In view of the above-noted categorical statement, Mr. Amir Raza Naqvi, learned counsel does not want to press the petition, as the same has borne fruit, and learned counsel for the accused M/s. Syed Ayaz Zahoor and Mohsin Javed also did not take any exception to the above-said statement of the learned Advocate-General, nor expressed any reservation thereto.
5. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we are inclined to observe that, further investigation in the light of the statement made by the learned Advocate-General to be carried out by a competent, impartial andhonest Police Officer and the same to be commenced within period of one week from the date of this order, and the result of the further investigation/second report as the case may be, to be submitted in the trial Court within one month from the date of the commencement of further investigation, failing which, the learned trial Court shall commence with the trial of the case in the light of the challan already submitted in the matter before the said Court.