In The Lahore High Court, Lahore.
W.P. No:___________/2009 No:___________/2009 *******
Sarfraz Rana ……. Petitioner VERSUS Inspector General of Police, Punjab etc. …….Respondents ******* FIR No: 503/09 Dated: 12-12-09 Offence u/s: 302/34 PPC Police Station: Bata Pur, Lahore.
******* INDEX
Sr N o
Particulars
1
Main Petition For Restoration of FIR
1-7
2
Affidavit of Petitioner
8-13
Anne x
Dated
Page No
2
3
Copy of Post Mortem Report & Chemical Examiner Report
A
14-18
4
Copy of Educational Record of the Deceased
B
19-20
5
Copy of FIR No: 503/09 u/s 302/34 PPC in Police Station Bata Pur, Lahore
C
6
Copies of Various Applications by the Petitioner before Police Officials
D
22-29
7
Copies of Print Media Reports
E
20-33
8
Copies of Police Record Quashing the FIR
F
34-59
9
Petition for Dispensing With Requirement of Appending Attested Copies
60-61
10
Affidavit of Petitioner
62-63
11
Power of Attorney
64
12-1209
21
PETITIONER Through
Ch. Mohammad Zaffar Ullah Sraw Faizul Hassan
Mian
3 Advocate High Court High Court
Advocate
C. C. No: PLH-39415 26167
C.C. No: PLH-
67-Hajvery Complex Complex
67-Hajvery
2-Mozang Road Mozang Road
2-
Lahore Lahore In The Lahore High Court, Lahore.
W.P. No:___________/2009 *******
Sarfraz Rana s/o Muhammad Tufail Rana r/o House No 5, Street No 1, Near Wapda Colony, Sultan Mehmood Road, Shalimar Town, Post Office Bhagwanpura, Lahore. ……. Petitioner VERSUS 1.
Inspector General of Police, Punjab.
2.
Deputy Inspector General (Investigation) of Police, Lahore.
3.
Senior Superintendent (Investigation) of Police, Lahore.
4.
Superintendent (Investigation) of Police Cantt., Lahore.
5.
Mian Muhammad Riaz SDPO, Manawan, Lahore.
4 6.
Muhammad Javaid, SHO (Operations) Bata Pur, Bata Pur Police Station, Lahore.
7.
Muhammad Abbas, SHO (Investigation), Bata Pur, Bata Pur Police Station, Lahore.
8.
Muhammad Ijaz Ali Sub-Inspector (Investigation) (Inquiry Officer), Bata Pur Police Station, Lahore.
9.
Muhammad Ahmed Bokhari s/o Muhammad Ijaz Bokhari r/o House No 5, Street no 5/B, Shah Kamal Road, Mughalpura, Lahore.
10. Shakeel Zahid, s/o Zahid Iqbal, Caste Arain, R/o House No 56, Main Fateh Garh, Mughalpura, Lahore. ……. Respondents ******* FIR No: 503/09 Dated: 12-12-09 Offence u/s: 302/34 PPC Police Station: Bata Pur, Lahore.
******* Petition Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and All Other Enabling Provisions for Restoration of FIR Quashed by Delinquent Police Officials & for Conduct of Fair & Impartial Investigation.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1.
That the Petitioner resides at the above mentioned address. The facts leading to the instant petition are that on Saturday 28-11-09 at about 02:00pm respondent no 9 came to his house and took away his son namely Rana Muhammad Irfan (age 21 years), with him.
5 2.
That on the same day at 04:00 pm someone rang up his landline number that his son Irfan has drowned in BRB canal. The petitioner and his brother in law Muhammad Arif Alvi reached the canal where Respondent no 9 & 10 were also present amongst other people.
3.
The petitioner was told that his son Muhammad Irfan had drowned and that the respondent no 9 & 10 could not save him
4.
That the respondent no 10’s apparel had no drop of water on it. The respondent no 9 & 10 on inquiry by the Petitioner kept on changing statements. It gave birth to doubt in Petitioner’s mind like i)
What were they doing on such secluded place, which remains deserted even in ordinary day time and especially on the Eid day?
ii)
The respondent No 10 was stated to have jumped in the canal to save his son but his clothes were not wet.
iii)
Why they came to canal side on such a cold day when swim was out of question and even otherwise the deceased did not know how to swim?
iv)
And if they had taken off boots and socks and were sitting by the canal dipping their feet in the water, then where did the boots and socks of the deceased go? As they were not available there neither were they found on the dead body (vide post mortem report ANNEXURE A ).
Etc. etc.
6 But the respondents failed to give any plausible answer rather they kept on contradicting each other. 5.
That the respondent no 9, who took away the deceased from home, was not known to the Petitioner or any of his family as friend of the deceased. He had never come to the house prior to this incident. Petitioner’s son Rana Muhammad Irfan was studying in BSc Computer Sciences in Rachna College of Engineering and Technology Gujranwala and he resided there ( vide educational record of deceased ANNEXURE
B).
Whereas, the
respondent no 9 & 10 reside at Lahore. 6.
That the deceased’s dead body was not found on the spot. According to ocular version of the respondent no 9 & 10 it went with the water current. However, later on it was recovered by the police on 07-12-09 at Bhoja Bridge on canal near Bhoja Village district Kasur. There were no socks or boots on the feet of the dead body. The Petitioner apprehended that the respondent no 9 & 10 had killed his son by throwing him in the canal as he did not know how to swim.
7.
That on a call, the respondent No 6 (SHO Operations PS Bata Pur) reached the spot and took along the petitioner and the respondent No 9 & 10 to
police
station.
After
some
preliminary
investigation, the respondent No 6 took the accused Respondent No 9 & 10 to the other side of the room and after having a conversation with someone on cell phone the respondent No 6 changed his attitude and all of a sudden, started
7 scolding the petitioner as if he was the accused for the reasons best known to him. 8.
That no FIR was registered at that time and the respondent no 6 directed the petitioner and respondent no 9 & 10 to settle the matter mutually without realizing its improbality qua the murder of a young son of the petitioner.
9.
That the dead body was recovered on 07-12-09 and subsequently the police had to register an FIR No: 503/09 dated: 12-12-09 u/s 302/34 PPC in Police Station Bata Pur, Lahore ( vide copy of FIR ANNEXURE C).
10. The case was then transferred to investigation branch of police. Unfortunately, the Respondent no 7 also turned out to be a replica of respondent no 6 in moral, ethical and human sense. He again kept on forcing the petitioner to give a statement that it was merely an accident and that his son was
not
murdered.
The
arrested
accused
respondent no 9 & 10 were given VVIP protocol at the police station by respondent no 7 & 8. Further the respondent no 7 & 8 intimidated the eye witness in order not to give correct testimony. In fact, the petitioner was told by one of the men present at the crime scene that he had seen respondent no 9 & 10 pushing the deceased into the canal. But his version was never given any credence. 11. That the petitioner moved numerous applications before Respondent no 1, 2, 3 & 4 but with no positive result coming there from. ( vide copies of applications ANNEXURE
D)
8 12. The matter being heinous and horrible in nature was also given wide coverage even in print media (vide copies of media reports ANNEXURE
E).
13. Be that as it may, at last that happened which the petitioner had feared from the beginning during whole of investigation, the police failed to to record his statement but also failed to get him joint in any stage of the investigation. On the other hand, the police with a mala fide motive cancelled the FIR (vide copy of police record ANNEXURE
F)
declared the incident to be an accident without having any regard to the points raised by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of this petition, and which he has been raising in all his applications since the inception of the case. They further intimidated the eye witness, who saw respondent no 9 & 10 shove the deceased into the canal, not to give testimony. 14. That the petitioner had been pursuing his case vigorously before various police officials till has completely failed to seek redress of his grievances. 15. That the petitioner has been subjected to worst kind of treatment, which the father of a murdered son can receive. The petitioner’s son was hope of the family for a better future. He was studying computer engineering and the family hoped that happier days will come when he qualifies. The accused have taken that hope from the family. 16. That the petitioner has no other speedy and efficacious remedy available to him other than to file this petition.
9
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, humbly prayed: I. That the FIR No: 503/09 dated: 12-12-09 u/s 302/34 PPC in Police Station Bata Pur, Lahore, may kindly be restored. And II. That the respondents no 1 & 2 may graciously be ordered to appoint some independent police officer to carry out investigation in a fair and impartial way. And III.That the respondents no 6, 7 & 8 be brought to book for the above mentioned crimes. And IV.
That any other relief which this honourable court deems fit and appropriate may kindly be awarded.
PETITIONER Through
Ch. Mohammad Zaffar Ullah Sraw Faizul Hassan
Mian
Advocate High Court High Court
Advocate
C. C. No: PLH-39415 26167
C.C. No: PLH-
67-Hajvery Complex Complex
67-Hajvery
2-Mozang Road Mozang Road Lahore Lahore
2-
10
NOTE: First Petition on the Subject by the Petitioner.
ADVOCATE
In The Lahore High Court, Lahore.
W.P. No:___________/2009 *******
Sarfraz Rana ……. Petitioner VERSUS Inspector General of Police, Punjab etc. …….Respondents ******* AFFIDAVIT OF: Sarfraz Rana s/o Muhammad Tufail
Rana r/o House No 5, Street No 1, Near Wapda Colony, Sultan Mehmood Road, Shalimar Town, Post Office Bhagwanpura, Lahore. ********** Respectfully Sheweth: I, the above named Deponent, do hereby, solemnly affirm and declare as under:
11 1.
That the Petitioner resides at the above mentioned address. On Saturday 28-11-09 at about 02:00pm respondent no 1 came to my house and took away my
son
namely
Rana
Muhammad
Irfan
(approximately 21 years of age), with him. 2.
That
approximately
at
04:00
pm
someone
unknown rang up my residence landline number that my son Irfan has drowned in BRB canal. When I and my brother in law Mr. Muhammad Arif Alvi reached the canal many people were present there. Respondent no 9 & 10 were also in attendance among these people. 3.
That my son was not there. On asking the respondent no 9 & 10 and other people narrated that my son Muhammad Irfan had drowned and that the respondents could not save him despite the fact that respondent no 10 dived in the canal for his rescue. 4. That the respondent no 10’s apparel had no drop of water on it. The respondent no 9 & 10 on inquiry by the Petitioner kept on changing statements.
That
gave
birth
to
doubt
in
Petitioner’s mind and he raised many questions like i) What were they doing on such secluded place, which remains deserted in even day time on Eid day? ii) Why respondent no 10’s clothes were not wet if he jumped in the canal to save his son?
12 iii)Why they came to canal side on such a cold day as swim was out of question on such
day
and
even
otherwise
the
deceased did not know how to swim?
iv) According to them they had taken off boots and socks and were sitting by the canal dipping their feet in the water, if so where did the boots and socks of the deceased go? As they were not available there neither were they found on the dead body ( ). Etc. etc. ANNEXURE A
But the respondents failed to give any plausible answer rather they kept on contradicting each other. 5. That the respondent no 9, who took away the deceased from home, was not known to the Petitioner or any of his family as friend of the deceased. He had never come to the house prior to
this
incident.
Petitioner’s
son
Rana
Muhammad Irfan was studying in BSc Computer Sciences in Rachna College of Engineering and Technology Gujranwala and he resided there (
ANNEXURE
B).
Whereas,
the respondents
reside at Lahore. 6.
That the deceased’s dead body was not found on the spot. According to ocular version of the respondents it went with the water current. However, later on it was recovered by the police on 07-12-09 at Bhoja Bridge on canal near Bhoja Village district Kasur. There were no socks or boots on the feet of the dead body. The Petitioner apprehended that the respondents have killed his
13 son by throwing him in the canal as he did not know how to swim. 7.
That the Petitioner sent someone to call the police and the respondent no 6 along with his policemen arrived at the spot. He took the Petitioner and the respondents and their relations with him to the police
station
and
started
interrogating
the
accused. Meanwhile, the petitioner felt need for urinating and went to the wash room. When petitioner came out of it the respondent no 6 along with the accused was standing near wash room’s door and all of a sudden started scolding the petitioner without rhyme or reason and asked him to sign a statement that the said incident was not a murder but was an accident. On this fast change of events the petitioner started weeping but to no avail. Petitioner’s brother in law who was sitting outside with some media friends of his came in after
hearing
petitioner’s
wails.
The
media
personnel intervened on behalf of the petitioner and kept the respondent no 6 at bay and made him realise that he had to act in accordance with law. The petitioner is sure that a bribe was offered to the respondent no 6 in his absence. There can be no other reason why a police official would all of a sudden behave in this course manner to a man who has just lost a grown up son. 8.
That however no FIR was registered at that time and the respondent no 6 told them to go away to a dera of an influential person of the vicinity and get their matter resolved instead of coming to police and wait for the dead body to be recovered. The petitioner did not go to the dera of that person as
14 he knew the repute of the said person and also knew that he was a poor man in comparison with the influence and financial position of the accused and that he would not be listened to. 9.
That the dead body was recovered on 07-12-09 and subsequently the police had to register an FIR No: 503/09 dated: 12-12-09 u/s 302/34 PPC in Police Station Bata Pur, Lahore ( ANNEXURE
C).
10. The case was then transferred to investigation branch of police and the petitioner thought that now perhaps he will be in safer hands but that thought now seems as if the petitioner was living in fools’ paradise. Respondent no 7 turned out to be a replica of respondent no 6 in moral, ethical and human sense. He again kept on forcing the petitioner to give a statement that it was merely an accident and that his son was not murdered. The arrested accused respondent no 9 & 10 were given VVIP protocol in the police station by respondent no 7 & 8. The petitioner came to know of it when one night the petitioner could not sleep and was extremely disturbed, he went to police station and saw for himself that the accused were putting up for night in in-charge investigation’s (respondent no 7’s) room in the police station, which again is not possible if there is no corruption or wielding of influence on the police. Further the respondent no 7 & 8 intimidated the eye witness into changing his testimony. The petitioner was told by one of the men present at the crime scene when he first reached there that he had seen respondent no 9 & 10 push the deceased into the canal. The petitioner reported the matter to the
15 respondent no 7 when the case was transferred to him but he along with respondent no 8 went to the man’s
house
threatened
him
with
dire
consequences and the respondent no 9 & 10 paid him some amount not to give testimony. 11. That the petitioner moved numerous applications before Respondent no 1, 2, 3 & 4 but with no result in the state of affairs. ( ANNEXURE
D)
12. That in desperation the petitioner tried to seek media support in his favour. He got his case reported in numerous newspapers ( ANNEXURE
E)
but that too had no effect on the police. 13. That at last that happened which the petitioner had feared from the beginning. The police with malafide intentions decided the investigation against the petitioner without calling him in any of the investigations. They not only failed to record his statement
or
to
join
him
in
any
of
the
investigations, but also illegally quashed the FIR ( ANNEXURE F) and declared the incident to be an accident without having any regard to the points raised by the petitioner in paragraph 4 of this petition, and which he has been raising in all his applications since the inception of the case. They further intimidated the eye witness, who saw respondent no 9 & 10 shove the deceased into the canal, not to give testimony. 14. That the petitioner had been pursuing his case vigorously before various police officials till last week when the respondent no 5 told him to go away and do what ever he can do.
16 15. That the petitioner has been subjected to worst kind of treatment, which the father of a murdered son can receive. The petitioner’s son was hope of the family for a better future. He was studying computer engineering and the family hoped that happier days will come when he qualifies. The accused have taken that hope from the family. 16. That the petitioner has no other speedy and efficacious remedy available to him other than to file this petition.
That the above-mentioned contents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION:
Verified on Oath at Lahore on ___________ that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and nothing has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT
17 In The Lahore High Court, Lahore
CM No: _________/2009 IN W.P. No:___________/2009 ******* Sarfraz Rana
VERSUS
IG Punjab, etc
******* Petition for Dispensing with the requirement of producing certified copies of documents under all enabling Provisions
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying main petition. 2. That the certified copies of the documents concerned are not available readily so the petitioner is filing this application with noncertified copies. 3. That the petitioner would append the certified copies later on or whenever ordered by the court. 4. That it is, therefore, humbly prayed:
18 PRAYER:
That the requirement of certified copies may kindly be dispensed with.
PETITIONER Through
Ch. Mohammad Zaffar Ullah Sraw Faizul Hassan
Mian
Advocate High Court High Court
Advocate
C. C. No: PLH-39415 26167
C.C. No: PLH-
67-Hajvery Complex Complex
67-Hajvery
2-Mozang Road Mozang Road Lahore Lahore
2-
19
In The Lahore High Court, Lahore
CM No: _________/2009 IN W.P. No:___________/2009
Sarfraz Rana
VERSUS
IG, Punjab, etc
******* AFFIDAVIT OF: Sarfraz Rana s/o Muhammad Tufail
Rana r/o House No 5, Street No 1, Near Wapda Colony, Sultan Mehmood Road, Shalimar Town, Post Office Bhagwanpura, Lahore. ******* I, the above named Deponent, do hereby, solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That the petitioner has filed the accompanying main petition.
20
2. That the certified copies of the documents concerned are not available readily so the petitioner is filing this application with noncertified copies. 3. That the petitioner would append the certified copies later on or whenever ordered by the court. That the above-mentioned contents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION:
Verified on Oath at Lahore on ___________ that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and nothing has been concealed therein.
DEPONENT