1985 P Cr (PLP)

(iii) The incident occurred on 31‑12‑1983 at about 4 p.m. while the report was lodged on 1‑1‑1984 at 6 a.m. Thus, a delay of 14 hours in lodging the report furnishes another ground for grant of bail. (iv) There was no motive to kill Rawji. The incident occurred during the attempt of snatching away the bullock. The applicant belongs to Banglani caste and there is possibility of falsely implicating the applicant to take revenge from Atai Banglani. (v) The weapon used was only a Lathi which, normally, is not a weapon to kill a person which, though recovered, was not blood‑stained.

4. None of these grounds has impressed me for the grant of bail. The counter‑story set up by the defence is entirely a matter to be considered by the trial Court.

5. His next contention about the contradiction of the injuries as per F.I.R and the medical report has also no force, in so far it concerns inflicting the injury by application to the deceased. According to the F.I.R the injury was caused by the applicant on the head of the deceased whereas the medical report describes the injuries as follows: ‑ (1) Lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1? c.m. x bone deep, on vertex on the middle. (2) Contusion 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. on right shoulder joint. According to the meaning given in Stedman's Medical Dictionary vertex means "Crown of the head", "the top most point of the vertex vault of the skull". In Butterworth Medical Dictionary Ilnd Edition it is meant "the highest point of summit, e.g. the vertex of skull".

6. So the plain reading of the dictionary meaning of the medical term vertex will show that there is no apparent contradiction between the F.I.R and the medical report with respect to the injury caused on the head of the deceased. The person lodging the F.I.R is not an expert who is supposed to be aware of the different medical terminology used to define different parts of the head. The ground for releasing Mahram, the co‑accused, on bail for the contradiction in the F.I.R and the medical report cannot, under the circumstances, be said to be available to the present applicant for granting bail to him as well because there was a clear contradiction in the case of Mahram, as Mahram was stated in the F.I.R to have caused the injury on the leg.

7. As regards the delay in lodging the F.I.R. although I agree that the delay in filing the F.I.R, not satisfactorily explained, call furnish a valid ground for the grant of bail to the accused but in the present case the delay of 14 hours has been reasonably explained by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General appearing for the State. Admittedly the distance between the place of occurrence of the offence and the Police Station is about 15 miles or so and there is no means? for transport except the bullock‑cart so there may be a justification for delay in lodging the F.I.R. I am however, afraid that this ground alone, will not justify the grant of bail in the circumstances of the case.

8. As far as absence of motive is concerned, the prosecution has ?at least given a motive i.e. tracking of the foot‑prints of the cattle thieves by the deceased Rawji, who is said to be a tracker by profession. However, it will be a matter of evidence and I need not say anything more in this respect. .

9. The last contention of the learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued by him, is with regard to inflicting injuries by Lathi which is a deadly weapon and so, according to him, the applicant had no intention to kill the deceased. I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that Lathi is not considered to be deadly weapon butt in this case we have to see the force with which the Lathi has been: applied and the seat of injury which is skull of the head in this case' and there are cases wherein the Lathi was used but in view of the seat of injury and the force applied, the blow by Lathi, proved to be a deadly one. So, the nature of the weapon to be deadly or otherwise is always to be considered in the circumstances of each case.

10. The learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to a number of authorities namely; Misal Khan v. The State 1978 P Cr.L J 98, Abdul Hameed Khan v. The State 1978 P Cr.L J 150, Nazir and another v. The State 1978 S C M R 285, Ashraf etc. v. The State 1979 P Cr.L J Note No.56 at p. 36.

11. I have gone through these authorities but none of them is applicable. to the facts of the present case.

12. To sum up, no case for the grant of bail has been made out by the applicant. The Bail Application is, therefore, dismissed.

13. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that this order should not be interpreted to mean that I have expressed any opinion on the facts and issues to be proved at the time of trial of the case. S. G. D.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail declined.