Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 154/B of 1983, decided on 7th March, 1983.

‑‑ S. 497‑Bail‑Murder‑Accused R holding deceased while accused A causing death‑‑Prosecution witnesses supporting extra‑judicial confession and last seen evidence‑Bail refused.

‑‑ S. 497‑Bail‑Murder‑Accused not caused any injury accord ing to extra‑judicial confession‑No overt act attributed to him Question of his vicarious liability requiring

further enquiry‑Bail allowed.

Ch. Perwaz Aftab for Petitioner.

Ch. Abdus Sattar Goraya for the Complainant.

Mirza Farrakh Aftab for the State.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Allah Ditta, Muhammad Rafiq and Salim, petitioners, in a case under section 302/34, P. p. C. registered at Police Station Burewela, vide F.I.R. No. 78, dated 11th June, 1982.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners in furtherance their common intention caused the death of Sharafat Hayat Ali on the night between 10th, 11th June, 1982.

3. There is no ocular evidence of the commission of the crime. During the investigation the police have collected evidence of extra‑judicial confession, last seen, Wajtakkar and of the recovery of identity card of the deceased from Allah Ditta, petitioner and wrist watch of the deceased from Muhammad Rafiq, petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the evidence of extra‑judicial confession being weak type of evidence the other circumstances collected by the police do not exclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the petitioners.

5. As against this the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application on the ground that the police has collected sufficient evidence to connect the petitioners with the murder of the deceased.

6. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that according to extra‑judicial confession made by Muhammad Rafiq petitioner before Muhammad Abdullah P. W. and of Saleem peti tioner, before Muhkam Din P. W., Muhammad Rafiq petitioner caught hold of the deceased, whereon Allah Ditta caused his death and Saleem was accompanying them. Since the police has collected evidence of extra judicial confession supported by Muhammad Abdullah and k1uhkam Din P. Ws: Wajtakkar supported by Muhammad Ramzan and Ali Sher, P. Ws. and the last seen evidence supported by Arshad and Hafeez Allah P. Ws., the identity card of the deceased was recovered from the possession Allah Ditta and the wrist watch of the deceased was recovered from Muhammad Rafiq petitioner, I am not inclined to release Muhammad Rafiq and Allah Ditta, petitioners on bail. To their extent the petition stands dismissed.

7. As for Saleem, petitioner, I find that even according to extra‑judi cial confession he did not cause any injury to the deceased and no overt act has been attributed to him, therefore, the question of his vicarious liability B in the circumstances of this case requires further inquiry. He is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in. the like amount to the statisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Vehari.

The application for bail to the extent of Allah Ditta and Muhammad Rafiq is dismissed.

M. A. K. 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.