Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail application No. 122 of 1983, decided on 2nd May, 1983.

‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Petitioners armed only with Lathis and no evidence to show which of they caused fatal injuries to deceased‑‑Deceased suffered only two blunt weapon injuries for which three petitioners being, held, liable‑‑ Question whether petitioners having any common intention to commit murder yet to be determined‑‑Petitioners allowed bail, in circumstances.

Jaffar and others v. The State 1980 S C M R 784 ref.

A. Hakeem Bijarani for Petitioners.

Muhammad Daud Baloch for the Complainant.

Amanullah Qureshi for the State.

Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1983.

By this application, bail has been sought for three applicants who are facing trial for the murder of deceased Karim Bux in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot.

2. The prosecution case is that on the day of occurrence, the accused Amin who was "ghar damad" of the deceased Karim Bux alongwith other co‑accused came armed with Lathis and inflicted Lathi injuries to the deceased. The motive attributed to the accused was that the deceased was not permitting his daughter to go with her husband namely the accused Amin. The deceased ultimately died of the injuries.

3. In support of the bail application Mr.Abdul Hakeem Bijarapi was heard and State counsel, Mr. Amanullah Qureshi submitted his arguments on behalf of the State. It was contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence indicating that the incident was unwitnessed. He further submitted that the deceased was examined by the two Medical Officers and there is conflict in their opinion. His further argument was that there was no evidence to show which of the accused had inflicted the fatal injury. In this connection, he relied upon the case of Jaffar and others v. The State 1980 S C M R 784. In this case it was not clear from the record as to which of the accused had caused the fatal injuries. It was held that there was room for consideration whether the accused shared common intention to kill the deceased and bail was accordingly granted to the accused. The learned counsel also contended that the accused who had only Lathis with them at the time of incident could not be saddled with intention to commit murder of Karim Bux.

4. No doubt the prosecution case is that all the three accused had inflicted injuries to the deceased with the Lathis. However, according to the Medical Officer of Tangwaani, who examined the deceased first discovered two injuries on his person, both swellings caused with blunt substance where as the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, who examined the deceased subsequently found only one injury on the deceased's body. If all the three accused had participated in causing the injuries, there should have been at least three injuries on the deceased's body.

5. Apart from above the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused had no common intention to commit the murder does not appear to be without force. This is clear from the fact that they were armed with Lathis which cannot be regarded as deadly weapons. There is also no evidence, as has been correctly pointed out by the learned counsel, to show which of the three accused had caused the fatal injuries. The above reported case relied upon by the learned counsel clearly supports his stand.

6. In view of the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the case of the applicants calls for further inquiry as to whether they had common intention to commit the offence. Bail is therefore, granted to all the three accused in the sum of Rs.25,000 each and P.R. bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

S.G.D./M‑34/K Bail 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.