1983 P Cr (PLP)

Ss. 497 & 498 read with S. 161 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307 & 326-Bail--Murder case-Statements of eye witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. supporting allegation in F. I. R.-General statements of respectables of village not having seen occurrence and having no knowledge of whereabouts of accused at time of occurrence-Held, hearsay evidence-Putting guilt of an accused to a referendum in village-Held, not function of Investigating Officer who is supposed to collect direct or cir cumstantial evidence which connects accused with crime or other wise--Direct evidence connecting petitioner with crime available- Bail refused in circumstances of case.-[Evidence]. M. D. Tahir for Petitioner. Iqbal Cheema for the State. Date of hearing : 8th December, 1982. Shera, his two sons Barkba and Atta Muhammad are accused of the murder of Allah Bakhsh. The case was registered against them at Police Station Rabwa on 17th January, 1982, under section 307/302/326, P.P.C. read with section -34, P.P.C. Shera has been bailed out. This is the petition of his sons.

2. It is alleged that a she-camel of Shera trespassed through the wheat crop of the complainant. Allah Bakhsh, his brother Farid stopped Shera from damaging the crop. They exchanged abuses and Shera threatened to avenge his insult. On the following day Atta Muhammad and Barkha opened the attack on Allah Bakhsh with hatchets on the instigation of their father Shera. Atta Muhammad gave a hatchet blow on the front side of his head. Barkha inflicted a hatchet blow to Farid, who tried to intervene.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the investigat ing officer found Atta Muhammad and Shera innocent and according to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it ryas Farid who gave the fatal blow. Muhammad Nawaz, A. S. I. who is present in Court with the police record, was directed to point out the material from the record with him, on the basis of which the investigating officer found Shera and Atta Muhammad innocent. He could not point out any direct evidence on this issue. On the contrary, there are the statements of the eyewitnesses recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. who have supported the allegation in the F. I. R. There is, however, a general statement made b the so-called respectables of the village that Atta Muhammad and Sher were innocent. What is hearsay evidence in Court, is also hearsay out of court and should have no persuasive value even during the investigation of a case. It is not the function of the investigating officer to put the guilt of an accused to a referendum in the village. He is supposed to collect direct evidence or circumstantial evidence which connects the accused with the crime or otherwise. General statements of a number of respectables of the village who have not seen the occurrence and who have no knowledge of the whereabouts of the accused at the time of the occur rence, would be hearsay. Since there is direct evidence connecting the petitioners with the crime, I, therefore, see no ground for bail. This petition is dismissed Petition dismissed.