1991 PLP 1329 (MLD)

Khurshid Ahmad Sodhi for Petitioner. Sardar Khurshid for the State. Date of hearing: 27th June, 1990. The occurrence took place at 2-30 p.m. on 10-1-1990 and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 5-15 p.m. by Muhammad Safdar/Muhammad Asghar complainant.

2. According to his version he alongwith his brothers Abdul Salam and Taj Din were going to the Patwari who had reportedly come for demarcation of land. They were assaulted by as many as 12 persons, 5 armed with .7 guns including the petitioner, 4 armed with 7 mm rifles and 3 with Sotas. The opening shot fired by Riasat hit the complainant on the elbow and the others caught hold of Abdul Salam and started giving him blows. When the P.Ws. started retreating they were further fired at by Amanat Ali and Anwar co-accused. But the shot of the former hit Muhammad Ramzan deceased in the back of the head when he had come up on the proof. Abdul Salam was carried away by the accused to the house and locked and when the police reached the spot he was recovered. He is having 9 blunt weapon simple injuries.

3. Contention raised is that actually the complainant party assaulted to take the forcible possession of the land, and in that occurrence Asghar and Abdul Salam were injured but Muhammad Ramzan deceased who had been hired from outside was murdered by the complainant party themselves and case falsely got registered. Learned counsel frankly conceded that their version was not even recorded by the police, so nothing in this regard need be said on this aspect.

4. He further contended that no specific role had been attributed to the petitioner so much so that it was not even alleged that he had caused any injury to Asghar/Safdar and Abdul Salam P.Ws. He pointed out that no crime empty has been recovered from the spot and so according to him the recovery of gun at the instance of the petitioner was of not much help to the prosecution. Abdul Salam was found locked in the house of Anwar co-accused and from there, he was recovered by the police. The petitioner is not related to his co-accused, so had no motive to join them. The motive alleged was against Ashraf, Riasat and Ashiq co-accused, but according to the police Riasat and Ashraf were not concerned in the occurrence. He also argued that had the intention been to commit the murder, Abdul Salam would not have been locked up with 9 blunt weapon injuries which were simple. One of the injuries (on the bridge of the nose) however, had been declared grievous on the person of Abdul Salam. The fatal shot to Muhammad Ramzan deceased is ascribed to Amanat Ali co-accused. Thus there is force in the contention raised that no role having been ascribed to the petitioner, not even any injury to Abdul Salam, he having no motive, the case calls for further inquiry. The version of the F.I.R. had been even partly found to be incorrect, as per the plea against the complainant party.

5. Hence allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Gujranwala. N.H.Q./I-263/L Bail allowed.