2007 P Cr (PLP)

MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.

Facts of the case are that on 28-6-2006 F.I.R. was lodged by complainant Shafi Muhammad that there was a dispute between him and Dhani Bux and Rafique over water. On 25-8-2006 in morning complainant's brother deceased Abdul Sattar had taken away cattle for grazing. At about 1430 hours Muhammad Waris and Balach Khan had informed complainant at his house that they had heard cries of deceased and found accused Dhani Bux and Rafique drowned Abdul Sattar in Nara Canal. Dost Muhammad was also standing on the bank of canal in company of both the accused persons. On the basis of this information, F.I.R. was lodged and applicants were taken into custody. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that they have been falsely implicated in the matter which is apparent from the zimni report lodged by Muhammad Waris son of Abdul Khan Chandio on 25-6-2007 which speaks only to the extent of making information of death of deceased Abdul Sattar. Neither the name of applicant has been mentioned therein as culprit nor their role has been assigned. However, in another report lodged on 28-6-2006 a new version has been taken by the complainant implicating the applicants as culprits. This subsequent improvement on the face of it, appears to be a mala fide act on the part of the complainant with consultation of his family members due to previous enmity between applicants and the complainant. It is further pointed out that though the incident came in the knowledge of the complainant on the very day i.e. 25-6-2006 as appears from the zimni report lodged by Muhammad Waris but no explanation for the delay in lodging F.I.R. on 28-6-2006 has been made. Learned State counsel has conceded that it is a case of improvement in the statement of complaniant during investigation. Delay in lodging F.I.R., proves enmity in between parties and improvement in the statement of complainant one of the factors which needs proper investigation and examination and require sufficient evidence. It is also astonishing that uncles of deceased, who claims to be eye-witnesses of incident with so near relation had played no role to save the deceased when in his presence he was said to be drowned by applicant and he stands there just an spectator. All these aspects require further inquiry. In view of foregoing reasons all the three applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./D-14/K Bail granted.