Find a Lawyer

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑--

‑‑‑ S. 498‑‑Bail pressed on‑‑grounds: (i) mashirnama of vardar not showing near vardat presence of earthen jar allegedly carried by deceased to fetch water ; (ii) medical evidence not supporting version of complainant and eye‑witnesses regarding deceased being throttled by neck and subsequently thrown into water ; (iii) mashirnama sad medical evidence indicating no marks of violence on neck of deceased and of being throttled ; (iv) cause of death given by doctor: asphyxia and shock due to drowning only ; (v) motive as stated in F. I. R. showing dispute between parties being over land; (vi) no other circum stantial evidence available and no recovery made from petitioner --Case, held, requires further enquiry into guilt of petitioner‑‑Bail allowed‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Mohammad Ali Sheikh for Applicant.

Murtaza Hussain for A.‑G. for the State.

The prosecution case is that applicant Laloo, who was on .illicit terms with Mst. Sabhai, throttled her by neck and drowned her in the water course on 18th June, 1978, at 4‑45 P. M. Report was lodged .on the following day at 8.30 A. M. by complainant Allah Bachayo husband of deceased Mst. Sabhai when the distance between the spot and P. S. is five miles. 1t is stated by the complainant in F. I. R. that Biloo brother of deceased Sabhai, and three other eye‑witnesses namely Qabil, Siddique, and Isso, who are sons of complainant and deceased also came to the spot on cries and saw the incident. Explanation is given in F. I. R. for the delay in reporting the matter to the Police. The reasons given for delay are that firstly, there was a rainfall, secondly, there was a nightfall, and thirdly the complainant went to inform Rais Abdul Hameed about the incident and fourthly no transport was available. It is also stated in F. J. R. and by other eye‑witnesses in their 161, Cr. P. C. statements that at the time of incident Mst. Sabhai had taken earthen jar on her head and went to canal tar fetch water. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Mashirnama of vardat does not show the presence of the earthen jar near the vardat. It is further contended that the medical evidence does not support the version of the complainant and the eye‑witnesses that Mst. Sabhai was throttled by neck and then subsequently she was thrown in the water. As against this the post‑mortem report of the Doctor, and also his evidence recorded before the trial Court indicate that there were no marks of violence on the neck and there was no throttling. The cause of the death given by the doctor, is Asphyxia shock due to drowning only. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the mashirnama of recovery of dead body also does no mention presence of the marks of violence on the neck of the deceased. The motive as stated in the F. I. R. is also to the effect that there w dispute between the parties over the land. There is no other circumstantial evidence in the case and no recovery has been made from the applicant.

Keeping in view the circumstances of the case as stated above, I think it is a case for further enquiry. In the meantime applicant Laloo, is, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 surety and P. R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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