1985 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/364‑‑Circumstantial evidence‑‑ Extra‑judicial confession‑‑Dead body not recovered‑‑Deceased seen last with accused persons but evidence recorded one month and fourteen days after alleged occurrence‑‑Prosecution version that deceased was abducted with intention of committing murder, belied by entry and attestation of mutation in his presence‑‑Extra‑judicial confession, held, was weak type of evidence, case was of further enquiry, thus ell under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Accused were, therefore, admitted to bail. Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram for Petitioners. Muhammad Abdur Rashid for the State. Date of hearing: 11th January, 1984. The case was registered, on 19‑6‑1983, on the statement of Muhammad Hayat, a uterine brother of Muhammad Amir deceased. According to the F.I.R., the occurrence had taken place on 19‑5‑1983. Supplementary statement of Muhammad Hayat was recorded wherein he stated that a wrong date of occurrence had been recorded in the F.I.R. and in fact the date of occurrence was 29‑5‑1983 and not 19‑5‑1983. A real son of the deceased, named, Muhammad Afzal, his widow Mst. Golai, Rafique and, Muhammad Ramzan have been involved in this case. The case had been registered with a considerable delay. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the instance of Muhammad Amir deceased mutations Nos. 402 and 403 were entered on 23‑5‑1983 and attested by the Revenue Officer on 28‑5‑1983. He contended that a false case had been registered giving false date of occurrence as 19‑5‑1983, as the deceased got the mutations entered on 23‑5‑1983, which were attested on 28‑5‑1983, in the presence of Muhammad Amir deceased. During the investigation of the case, statements of Gul Muhammad and Hakam were recorded on 28‑6‑1983 wherein they stated that Afzal, Rafique and Mst. Golai made confessional statements. The statements of Lal and Ashraf were recorded on 3‑7‑1983 wherein they stated that they had seen the deceased in the company of the petitioners about one and a quarter months ago. Ghulam Muhammad Madni made a statement on 2‑8‑1983 to the effect that a month or some time more than that Rafique had made confession before him. The evidence was also collected to the effect that on 7‑7‑1983 Muhammad Afzal petitioner produced ring, Rafique petitioner produced Identity Card and Muhammad Ramzan petitioner produced Chappal of the deceased from near the place where the dead body .was thrown into the river.

2. The dead body in this case has not been recovered. Circumstantial evidence has been collected against the petitioners. The statements of Lal and Ashraf were recorded on 3‑7‑1983 i.e. more than one month and fourteen days of the alleged occurrence. They did not offer their statements earlier although they had seen the deceased in the company of the petitioners one and a quarter months ago. Extra‑judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. Ghulam. Muhammad Mandi made statement on 2‑8‑1983 stating that a month ago Rafique had made confession before him. The prosecution version that the deceased was abducted with intention of committing his murder was belied by the fact that mutations were entered at the instance of Muhammad Amir deceased on 23‑5‑1983 and attested by the Revenue Officer on 28‑5‑1983, in the h presence of Muhammad Amir deceased. It is a case of further enquiry. The case of the petitioners falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. They are admitted to bail in the sum of Rupees twenty thousand each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali. S. A Bail allowed