2000 P Cr (PLP)

The petitioner, Kazirn Hussain, who was refused bail by the learned Civil Judge-II/Judicial Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, vide their orders, dated 18-6-1999 and 5-7-1999 respectively, has filed the instant bail application in case F.I.R. No.83, dated 17-5-1999 under section 324, P.P.C. of Police Station Paharpur, D.I. Khan.

2. The story disclosed by the complainant Shera son of Ghulam Shabbir in the F.I.R. is that on the eventful night at about 10-30 p.m. he alongwith his brother Fazalur Rehman and uncle Muhammad Ramzan were irrigating their fields, when 'in the meanwhile the petitioner appeared at the scene of occurrence duly armed with a shotgun and fired at them, as a result of which his brother Fazalur Rehman was hit and injured on his abdomen and arm, who fell down on the ground and the petitioner ran away. The complainant claimed that the petitioner was identified in the torch light. Net motive is the dispute over female relations. The occurrence was also stated to have been witnessed by the father of the complainant.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a night occurrence and the identification of the culprit is a serious question involved in the instant case. He further submitted that the medical report does not support the prosecution version on the point that several, injuries vary in their diameter and shape which, according to the learned Cunsel, do not appear to have been fired from one fire-arm. His syne submission is that no recovery of any kind of empty has been made from the scene of occurrence. He also criticized the evidence of the prosecution qua the witnesses, who are admittedly related to the injured person and there is no independent ocular witness. He was also critical of the prosecution evidence on the point that as many as fifteen injuries were present on the body of the victim and only one accused is charged. It was also pleaded that the investigation is complete arid the petitioner is no more required for investigation. The learned Counsel has also produced certain photostat copies of the affidavits of some local persons and also statements of three persons recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., which suggests that the petitioner was present with them on the eventful night and, therefore, his involvement in the instant case is false.

4. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Advocate-General for State and learned Counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. He was identified in the light of the torch and there was a motive for the commission of the offence as has been narrated in the F.I.R. Moreover, the offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P,C. and, as such, there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner which disentitle him to the concession of bail.

5. I have heard the rival arguments of both the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R., which in the circumstances of the case, is lodged without any inordinate delay and his identification has also been claimed in the torch-light. The motive for the commission of the offence has also been attributed to the petitioner. I have also examined the medical report which, prima facie, supports the prosecution case. It reveals that almost at four different points on the body of the victim, presence of the pellets have been observed, which are stated as follows:-- (1) One pellet observed underneath the s& at the level of 8th, costal cartilage in front of chest on left side. (2) One pellet observed underneath the skin on chest in front (left side) at the level of 10th costal cartilage. (3) One pellet observed under the skin over the left H.C. 2" below the above one. (4) One pellet observed underneath the skin over the left side of abdomen 2" below and slightly tatral to the pellet No.3. It clearly suggests that the injuries were caused with the shotgun which has peen mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. Thus, the medical report runs congruent to the version of - the complainant. The statement of the injured person has been recorded who also has charged the petitioner for the offence. The Investigating Officer has recovered some blood-stained earth and a torch with a couple of cells from the place of occurrence, which were taken into possession by him through a recovery memo.

6. In cases for causing injuries to a person, normally the statement of the injured supported by the medical evidence is sufficient for the- formation of a belief that the accused is, prima facie, linked with the offence he is charged with. In the instant case, the medical report duly supports the version of the complainant and the injured P. W . and there is no contradiction of such a nature which, in any way, has a tendency to under mind the evidentiary value of the eye-witnesses. The plea of the petitioner that he was present at some other place, for which the statements/affidavits of some local persons have been recorded cannot, in any manner, outweigh the direct evidence against the petitioner, and such statements or affidavits would be scanned by the trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties and evaluating the same on the touchstone of the principle governing the appreciation of evidence.

7. In the present case, there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is, prima facie, linked with the offence of attempting at the life oft the injured Fazal Rehman.

8. In view of the above discussion, I have no inclination to admit the petitioner on bail. Resultantly, this bail application is dismissed. However, since it has been brought to my notice that the investigation is complete, therefore, the prosecution is directed to submit complete challan in the Court concerned within a fortnight and the trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial within five months. The office shall transmit record of the case back to the Court concerned forthwith. NJJ.QJ482/P Bail refused.