1995 P Cr (PLP)

Zafar Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari for the Complainant. Malik Muhammad Yousaf for the State. The petitioner Muhammad Ramzan Butt seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.243/94, dated 21-6-1994 for the offence under section 302/460, P.P.C. and Article 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station, Sharqpur, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura.

2. Briefly the facts of the case according to F.I.R. are that during the night falling between 20/21-6-1994, unknown culprits committed murder of Mst. Miraj Bibi, mother of the complainant and Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, his sister -in-law after committing Zina-bil-Jabr with her. The culprits also committed theft of certain articles.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the occurrence was considered as unseen; the petitioner has been implicated falsely due to enmity and the only evidence available against the petitioner is alleged extra-judicial confession made by him alongwith his co-accused before Abdul Sattar and Shah Muhammad which is very weak evidence and as there is no direct evidence against the petitioner, hence is a case of further inquiry.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant as well as State counsel conversely opposed the petition and vehemently contended that extra-judicial confession has been corroborated by the circumstantial evidence which prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides at length and have perused the record produced by the Investigating Officer.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner alongwith his co- accused made, extra-judicial confession stating that they committed Zina-bil -Jabr with Mst. Mumtaz Bibi and thereafter murdered her and also killed Mst. Miraj Bibi, the mother of the complainant; the moulds of the accused persons were obtained from the place of occurrence and were referred to tracker. The moulds of the petitioner and co-accused Jamil were identified correctly by the trackers at the time of their identification parade as well. A pair of earrings of deceased Mst. Mumtaz Bibi was also recovered from the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on case The State v. Kamal Khan alias Maloo and another 1993 SCMR 1378 and contended that extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner and co-accused being a joint confession could not be used against him. Further, relied upon case Muhammad Tasneem v. The State 1985 SCMR 160 and case reported as Sajwara v. The State 1988 MLD 1849 wherein it was observed that extra- judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence; in the absence of direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime mainly relying on the alleged extra-judicial confession in joint statement by all the accused is not safe and I bail be granted being a case of further inquiry.

8. True, extra-judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence and ordinarily in the absence of any other independent evidence; it is not safe to rely upon it and in such cases bail should not be withheld either as a punishment or stretched in favour of the prosecution.

9. Admittedly, it was un-witnessed occurrence; the Investigating Officer collected the evidence against the petitioner and co-accused in the shape of identification parade; made recovery of earrings of Mst. Mumtaz Bibi deceased. Collected evidence regarding when the petitioner was seen alongwith co-accused near the place of occurrence on the night of occurrence besides extra-judicial confession allegedly made by him about the commission of murder before two respectable of the localities. I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence besides extra-judicial confession to connect the petitioner with the brutal murder of two ladies.

10. The words "reasonable grounds" appearing in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.; the expression connotes to such grounds as would appeal to a reasonable man for connecting the accused with the crime with which he is charged. The Courts are duty bound while granting bail falling in prohibitory clause (I) of section 497, Cr.P.C. to apply their minds deeply on the nature of incident and surrounding circumstances and can make a tentative assessment of the prosecution evidence. The evidence which has been collected by the police during the course of investigation of this case prima facie connects the accused with the commission of offence alongwith his co-accused as the petitioner could not satisfy the Court that the complainant had any enmity with him or the malice on the part of the police. I am of the view there is enough circumstantial evidence which corroborates the extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner in committing the brutal murder of two innocent ladies. I find no good ground to exercise my discretion in. favour, of the petitioner. Resultantly, the bail application is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./M-2183/L Bail refused.