1985 PLP (2) (MLD)

The prosecution case in brief is that Rehmat Ali deceased was the husband of Mst. Sughran accused. On 9-12-1983, Rehmat Ali went to attend a marriage in a village within the limits of P.S. Sadar Sheikhupura. He returned on 12-12-1983 and, inquired from Mst. Sughran about the gold ornaments with her, further alleging that he had heard that she had handed over those ornaments to Muhammad Ashraf (petitioner). Mst. Sughran replied that she would not give the ornaments to him. All this happened in the presence of Ghulam Farid P.W. Rehmat Ali started abusing Mst. Sughran who raised alarm which attracted Muhammad Ashraf petitioner and his brother Lal. They both, according to the F.I.R. , gave fist and kick blows to the deceased as a result of which he died. Muhammad Yousaf father of Rehmat Ali deceased was informed by Ghulam Farid P.W. about the occurrence. He was also told that the accused were arranging the burial of Rehmat Ali deceased. On this information, Muhammad Yousaf complainant went to the house of Rehmat Ali and noted that his face was red and there were black and red marks on his arm and back. He also found blood and filth coming out of the mouth of the deceased. At this, Yousaf started raising alarm which attracted Amanat Ali and Younas. They all told the accused party that Rehmat Ali deceased will be buried in Khui Warra village and not at that place. After some haggling they succeeded in taking the dead body of Rehmat deceased and lodged 'the F.I.R. The petitioner was arrested during the investigation.

2. In support of this petition, it is contended that according to the post-mortem report, Rehmat Ali died due to asphyxia and not due to the blows by kick and fists. It is, therefore, argued that this fact belied the allegations contained in the F.I.R. that he was given kick and fist blows by the accused. It is next contended that Mst. Sughran and Lal accused have already been allowed bail because Mst. Sughran was a woman and during investigation Lal was found to be not present A at the spot at that time. It is, therefore, argued that the case of the present petitioner is that of further inquiry. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition.

3. The deceased was found to be having red and black marks on his arm and back by the complainant. He also noted that the face of the deceased was red at the time when he went to the spot on receipt of the information about the occurrence. The F.I.R. was not lodged by an eye-witness. If, there was some omission in the details of the injuries caused by the accused to the deceased, it is not material for the purposes of this petition. It is possible that the accused might have pressed the neck of the deceased at the time of occurrence. In this view of the matter, I find that there is no difference between the medical evidence and the F.I.R. The grounds on which the co-accused of the present petitioner were allowed ,bail are not available to Muhammad Ashraf petitioner. The motive is directly attributed to the petitioner who had developed illicit relations with Mst. Sughran accused. I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. S. A. Petition dismissed.