Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous, No, 248/B of 1977, decided ore 21st February 1977.

‑‑‑ S. 497‑Petitioner, accused of murder, not named in F. I. R. nor implicated as assailant by a prosecution witness, a real brother of deceased‑Petitioner remanded to police custody after making judicial confession‑Bail allowed, in circumstances.

‑‑ S. 497‑Petitioner, accused of murder, named in F. I. R. and specific role of dealing hatchet blow on head of deceased attributed to him by complainant and corroborated by a witness‑Question whether head injury of deceased, turned out to be a lacerated wound could or could not be caused with hatchet yet to be resolved‑Bail declined, in circumstances.

Mohammad Iqbal Bhatti for Petitioners.

Mian Nisar Ahmad for the State.

The case was registered on the statement of Mohammed Ishaq, on 7‑5‑76 at 6 a. m., at Police Station Raiwind. The complainant disclosed in the F. I. R. that Ismail petitioner was armed with hatchet and his companions Ibrahim, Bashir Ahmad, Aslam and Mohammad Ali had committed the murder of Piaroo Masih by inflicting him injuries with hatchets, spear, kassi and firearms. The case was investigated by the local police. Ibrahim, Bashir Ahmad, Aslam and Mohammad Ali, who were named as assailants were found innocent. During the investigation, Hidayat Masih petitioner was arrested. He made judicial confession on 10‑5‑76. He was remanded to police custody on 11‑5‑76. He had produced three empties, one spear and one revolver before the police during the investigation of the case. Incomplete challan has been submitted in Court against the present petitioners and one Ismail son of Bashir.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Hidayat Masih petitioner was not mentioned in the F. I. R. that the judicial confession of Hidayat Masih was inadmissible in evidence as he was remanded to Police custody after the judicial confession; that the other eye‑witness, named, Taroo Masih, a brother of Piaroo Masih deceased had not named him in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. About Mohammad Ismail petitioner's learned counsel contended that according to the prosecution version, the petitioner had inflicted hatchet blows to the deceased on the head but no injury with sharp‑edged weapon was found on the head of the deceased and the medical evidence clearly contradicted the eye count of the occurrence.

3. Name of Hidayat Masih was not mentioned in the F. I. R. nor in the statement. of Taroo Masih, a brother of the deceased. The case was registered on 7‑5‑76. Hidayat Masih petitioner was arrested on 9‑5‑76. He was produced before the Magistrate, for recording his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. The Magistrate did not inform the petitioner that he would not be remanded to the police custody after confessional statement. In view of the facts that Hidayat Masih was not named in the F. I. R." and the brother of the deceased also did not name him as an assailant and for the reason that he was remanded to police custody after judicial confession, T admit Hidayat Masih to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Kasur.

4. As regards Ismail petitioner he was named in the F. I. R. as one of the assailants. He was armed with a hatchet and he had used the hatchet and inflicted blows on the head of the deceased. Taroo Masih corroborated the statement of Mohammad Ishaq complainant. Injuries were on the head of the deceased. Those were lacerated wounds. It is yet to be seen as to whether the injuries inflicted by Mohammad Ismail petitioner landed from the sharp edge or the blunt side of the hatchet. Since Mohammad Ismail petitioner has been named in the F. I. R. and specific role has been attributed to him and an incomplete challan has been submitted in Court, his case is not fit for bail. His petition is dismissed.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.