1992 PLP 628 (MLD)

Muhammad Aslam (22) and his father Muhammad Yaseen (46) were sent up by Police Station Saddar Bhakkar, for trial for having committed the murder of Mujahid. The trial Court vide its judgment, dated 18-1-1990, convicted and sentenced both of them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000 each, or in default 2 years' R.I. each. It was further directed that the fine if recovered, 3/4 of it shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Convicts were given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Convicts have appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same. The occurrence in this case took place on 15-4-1987, at 10 a.m. in a street, 16 miles from Police Station Saddar Bhakkar. The case was got regsitered by Abdul Haleem, P.W.5 on the same day at 11-45 a.m. Learned counsel for the appellants before reading the evidence took up preliminary objections that challan against both the convicts was submitted under section 302/34, P.P.C. Thereafter convicts filed an application for re- investigation of the case. Police authorities accepted the same and marked the investigation to Crimes Branch. D.S.P. Crime Branch re-investigated the case and came to the conclusion that the occurrence has been committed by one Zahoor and the appellants were innocent. In pursuance of this finding a supplementary challan was submitted against Zahoor accused alone. Challan was presented before the same Magistrate for sending it to the trial Court which had taken cognizance of the case on the basis of challan submitted earlier. The learned Magistrate refused to send the challan on the ground that a complete challan submitted earlier by the police was pending trial, therefore, another challan in the same case could not be presented. The appellants filed revision against the orders of Magistrate and the learned trial Court vide his order. dated 17-6-1989, directed that supplementary challan should also be sent up. It may now be pointed out that second challan was submitted under section 512, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court received both the challans and thereafter commenced trial on the first challan submitted against the appellants and decided the case. In the meanwhile Zahoor accused in the supplementary challan was also arrested and the trial against him also commenced. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court should have held the trial in both the cases simultaneously and should have pronounced the judgment on the same day. Argued that the accused in the second challan had made a confessional statement but the learned trial Court would be absolutely helpless to convict him because it has already given, findings to the effect that the present appellants alone were responsible for the murder and, in such circumstances, case of the appellants has been seriously prejudiced. Submitted that there were two sets of accused arising out of the same occurrence and the F.I.R., therefore, they should have been tried together. Submitted that in these circumstances judgment impugned may be set aside with the direction to the learned trial Court to re-write the judgment alongwith judgment in the other case pending trial before the same Court. Contentions were seriously opposed by learned counsel for the complainant. According to him the accused persons had managed to manoeuvre the orders for re-investigation with ulterior motive from an officer of their choice, who without bringing any further material on the file opined about the innocence of the appellants. Argued that there was no provision in Criminal Procedure Code which empowered the police to submit a supplementary challan, therefore, the same should have been ignored. 1 have heard the learned counsel from both sides and carefully gone through the file. The admitted facts of the case are that an F.I.R. with Police Station Saddar Bhakkar was lodged by Abdul Haleem, P.W.5, for the murder of one Mujahid on 15-4-1987. The accused mentioned in the F.I.R. were Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Yaseen appellants. The police after thorough investigation submitted the challan against the said accused. Thereafter, case was reinvestigated by Crimes. Branch and they held the. appellants innocent and submitted challan against one Zahoor, who was not even in custody. In the light of these facts which had not been disputed by either side, the only question which remains to be resolved is whether the trial Court should have decided both the challan cases together. The trial in the -second challan submitted against Zahoor has commenced and I am informed that the prosecution evidence has been concluded. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that even if accused in the second challan has made a confessional statement yet he cannot be convicted, because the learned trial Court has already fixed the responsibility of the ,q murder of Mujahid on the appellants. If the cases had been tried together then this difficulty could not have arisen. In these circumstances while accepting the appeal, I set aside the judgment and remand the case to the learned trial Court to re-write the judgment on the basis of evidence already recorded alongwith the judgment to be given on the basis of supplementary challan. Both the cases shall be decided within two months.

3. However, before parting with the case I am constrained to observe that the procedure adopted by the DSP Crimes Branch cannot be appreciated in any manner. He without recording any evidence or giving reasons, came to the conclusion that the appellants were innocent and another person by the name of Zahoor was responsible for the murder who was not even available at that stage. As has been repeatedly observed by the Superior Courts that the system of re-investigation in criminal cases is a recent innovation which is always taken up at the instance of influential people. Such like reinvestigations do not assist the Court in any manner, instead they create complications for administration of justice. The manner in which subsequent challan was submitted does not seem to be above board and I endorse the view of the learned trial Court that it just created problems in the administration of justice. Therefore a copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, for information. N.H.Q./M-88/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded: