Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 786 of 1979, decided on 29^th November, 1979.

---‑S.497(5) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 307/326 Bail, cancellation of‑Confessions of both respondents, charged for committing offences under Ss. 307 & 326, P. P. C. for throwing acid on their victim, resulting in disfigurement of their bodies and faces neither referred to nor considered by Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail‑Respondents, held, not entitled to. concession of bail, in circumstances‑Bail cancelled.

Kh. Naveed Ahmed for Applicant.

Mohammad Ashraf Kazi for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Murtaza Hussain, A: G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 30th October, 1979.

By this application under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. the applicant, who is a complainant in the case arising out of the F. I. R. No. 81 of Police Station Brigade at Karachi, .has sought cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, by his order dated 22nd July, 1979. The respondents have been sent up to stand trial under section 307/326, P. P. C. and the case has not yet proceeded.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that according to F. I. R. Mst. Nasima wife of Screed aged . 24 years and Mst. Nasreen daughter of Iqbal aged 9 years were sleeping together on the same cot when at about 1‑30 or 2‑00 a.m. an acid was thrown on their bodies by some unknown persons which has burnt their bodies and faces. They were brought to the hospital by one Saline; son of Thekdar. The' Brigade police in the first instance had arrested one Pathan by name Salam who was kept in custody for 14 days but nothing incriminating was found out from him. The investigation. was transferred to C. I. A. Police. The C. I. A. arrested the present respondents and Abdul Rashid the respondent No. 1 has made confession on the next day of his arrest in which he has admitted that he had brought up. "Mst. Naseema", who was his niece since her childhood. But she did not like advices of the respondent No.1 regarding observing "parch" and preserving her character. She on the contrary did not like to see his face which according to her was like that of a pig. As it involved his sentiments, he therefore, planned to commit this offence.

3. Abid Hussain alias Ali Abid, the respondent No. 2.in his confession has admitted that he was employed by the respondent No. 1 to throw acid on "Nasima" to which he agreed and was paid Rs.‑ 30 for doing this job which he carried while "Nasima" was sleeping in the courtyard of her house alongwith other members of the family.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant also contends that both of the victims have been very badly affected and "Nasima" as per her 164, Cr. P. C. statement has lost her eye and the younger girl has been badly disfigured. He pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has neither referred to nor taken into consideration the confessions of the respondents, recorded on the next day of their arrest in his order of grant of bail though corroboration through Abdul Habib Qureshi was available as he had stated that Abdul Rashid was doing a painting job and acid was usually used by him. He therefore supplied acid to him on his demand a day prior to this incident. If confessions are believed. it would be a sufficient ‑evidence for the purposes of conviction. The respondent stand charged with an offence punishable for imprisonment for life. Therefore grant of bail at this stage would amount to a judgment of acquittal as no note of confessions has been taken at the time of grant of bail.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contends that there are two versions from the prosecution as one Abdul Salam was involved in the first instance by the victims in their statements under section 164, Cr. P. C. but subsequently for the reasons best known to them, the present respondents have been involved who are being substituted. In reply to my question as to why these confessions were not referred to or considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting the bail, the learned counsel replied that though they have not been mentioned in the order but by his reference that there were two versions, it meant confessions of respondents.

6. The learned counsel further contends that it was clear from the two investigations that at one stage Abdul Salam was involved and subsequently the present respondents have been implicated. Therefore it was a case which required further inquiry under the circumstances and the respon dents were entitled to concession of bail. Regarding statements of the victims under section 164, Cr. P. C. the learned counsel submitted that they were recorded on 22nd July, 1979, exactly on the day when the learned Additional Sessions Judge, passed the impugned order and there fore no mention has been made about them.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the State does not support the order of grant of bail as the confessions of both the respondents have neither been referred to nor considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail. It would be therefore a sufficient reason for cancellation of their bail, as an important piece of evidence, which stands corroborated by the statement of Abdul Habib Qureshi, who had supplied the acid to the respondent No. 1 has not been given proper attention and due weight.

8. I have considered both the aspects of the case, i.e. involvement of one Abdul Salam in the first instance and subsequently of the present respondents. The statements of the ladies who are victims in the case have been recorded on 22nd July, 1979. It shows that they had absolutely no suspicion in the respondents in the first instance. If they had any grudge against them they would have involved them even on the day when the incident too(C place. This shows honesty of the ladies. Moreover the confessions,. Of the respondents have been .recorded prior to the statements of the ladies under section 164, Cr. P. C. It was required of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have considered the confessions and corroborative statement of Abdul Habib Qureshi while granting bail. However it is not known if this was brought to his notice by the prosecution or even defence as it was obligatory on both of them to have placed all facts before him so as to facilitate him to pass orders after considering all pieces of evidence. Any way, the learned Additional Sessions Judge would look into it as to how and why these "slips" took place. In any case, the respondents under the Circumstances are not entitled to concession of bail. Therefore without going into the merits of the case, their bail is hereby cancelled and they shall be forthwith remanded to custody.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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