1969 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑

This petition for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, is by the father of the deceased who was allegedly murdered by the respondents on the 23rd September 1965, at 9‑00 a.m. The learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan convicted the respondents under section 302/34, P. P. C. and sentenced Muhammad Yusuf to death and Ali Muhammad to transportation for life. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of acquittal has been made on misreading the evidence on record. It is pointed out that the evidence of recoveries of blood stained clothes from the person of Ali Muhammad has been rejected without properly considering the evidence in this regard. The prosecution case is that on the 24th of September 1965, one day after the occurrence, A. S. I., Nasiruddin, P. W. 18, arrested these respondents from an abandoned kotha near their house. At that time he took into possession a shirt and a chaddar from the person of Muhammad Yusuf as they were stained with blood. He also took into possession a shirt and a chaddar from Ali Muhammad which were also stained with blood. Both the respondents led the A. S. I. to their houses and each of them produced a blood‑stained spear. The recoveries it is said, were witnessed by Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 9) and Bakhat Ali (P.W.10). The learned Judges in the High Court have disc arded this evidence as Ghulam Muhammad is a relation of Taj Muhammad, P. W., the father of the deceased. It is pointed out that Ghulam Muhammad was not asked whether he is a relation of Taj Muhammad. Taj Muhammad only stated that Ghulam Muhammad and he belonged to the same bradri. The other reason given for rejection of the evidence regarding recovery was chat according to the evidence of Taj Muhammad, Ali Muhammad was arrested on the 23rd September 1965 and therefore, the recovery of blood‑stained clothes from his person clearly shoves that blood was planted on the clothes on the 24th September 1965. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the evidence of Taj Muhammad at the trial. Taj Muhammad did not state that Ali Muhammad was arrested on the day of occurrence. He was confronted with his statement in the committing Court where such a statement found place. The learned Judges evidently treated the statement in the committing Court as substantive evidence. There are similar instances, it is pointed out, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High Court. The points raised deserve consideration and we, therefore, grant leave to re‑examine the evidence. Bailable warrants to issue for the arrest of the respondents in the sum of Rs. 5,000 A each with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. D. M., Rahimyar Khan. Leave granted.