MLD 2018

2018 PLP 1007 (MLD)

ADAM KHAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh (Sukkur Bench)
Decided Date
2017-May-29
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2018 PLP 1007 (MLD)
Forum / Court Sindh (Sukkur Bench)
Bench Members N/A
Parties ADAM KHAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 1007 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 1007 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Sukkur Bench) bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 1007 (MLD) (ADAM KHAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 338-A & 34

Qatl-i-amd, isqat-i-haml, common intention

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Prosecution case regarding four brothers jointly strangulating deceased required further inquiry as to its veracity

Prima facie, it appeared odd that girl was being jointly strangulated by four adult men and in spite of cries of the deceased only complainant party, had arrived and no other person from the adjoining houses was present to witness the incident or its aftermath

No specific role was assigned to any accused, though FIR revealed that all the four accused were seen strangulating the deceased

Post-mortem report of deceased showed that deceased died due to asphyxiation caused by a rope or a tube

FIR had remained silent on the use of a rope or tube by assailants for the purpose of suffocating deceased

Post-mortem report revealed that only one bruise was found on the neck of deceased; there was no hand marks on the neck or other signs of violence on the deceased

Contention of accused that suicide was the result of death, could not be ruled out

Complainant had narrated in FIR that he reached place of occurrence (house) at 11:00 P.M. after which incident had taken place while post-mortem report showed that death occurred at 10:00 P.M. on the same day

Prima facie it seemed odd that accused would spare eye-witnesses knowing fully well that they would implicate accused in same occurrence

Co-accused with same (alleged) role had already been granted pre-arrest bail by Trial Court

No reason appeared as to why accused would kill his wife who had been married to him for ten years and with whom accused had three children

Case of accused required further inquiry and fell within the ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was granted accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

OMAR SIAL, J.

This application has been filed by applicant Adam Khan seeking his post arrest bail in crime number 95/2015 registered under sections 302, 34, 338-A, P.P.C. at Police Station Ranipur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-6-2015 one Arz Mohammad Marri lodged an FIR stating therein that his daughter, Bakhtawar married the applicant Adam Khan and from the wedlock had three children. Adam Khan started maltreating Bakhtawar and would often not give her permission to visit her father's home. On 27-6-2015 Bakhtawar sent a message to Arz Mohammad that she had a danger to her life from her Adam Khan. On receipt of this information, Arz Mohammad together with his two sons, named Allah Dino and Muhammad Rafiq headed to Adam Khan's home. At 11:00 p.m. when they reached outside his home they heard cries from inside the house. They entered the house and saw that Adam Khan, Qurban Ali, Imam Ali and Ali Mohammad were strangulating Bakhtawar. Upon seeing the complainant party, all the four persons left the premises, Bakhtawar died on the spot.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant as well as the learned APG. The learned counsel of the complainant remained absent despite being at notice. My observations are as follows. i. The prosecution story regarding four brothers jointly strangulating the deceased requires further enquiry as to its veracity. Prima facie, it appears odd that one girl was being jointly strangulated by four adult men. It also seems odd that in spite of cries of the deceased, which coincided with the arrival of the complainant party, no other person from the adjoining houses was present to witness the incident or its aftermath. At this stage throwing the net wide cannot be ruled out. ii. There is no specific role assigned to any accused. It has been stated in the FIR that all the four accused were seeing strangulating the deceased. iii. The post mortem report of the deceased opines that the deceased died due to asphyxiation caused by a rope or a tube. The FIR had remained silent on the use of a rope or tube by the assailants for the purpose of suffocating Bakhtawar. The post mortem report also clearly opines that only one bruise is found on the neck of the deceased. There are no hand marks on the neck or other signs of violence on the deceased. The argument of the Applicant's counsel that this was a suicide can not be ruled out at this stage. iv. The complainant narrates in the FIR that he had reached the house of Adam Khan at 11:00 p.m. on 27-6-2015 after which the incident has taken place. The post mortem report however shows that the death occurred at 10:00 p.m. on 27.6.2015. v Prima facie, it also seems odd that the accused would spare the eye-witnesses knowing fully well that they will implicate the accused in this crime. vi Co-accused Imam Ali and Qurban Ali, with the same role alleged have already been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned trial court. vii. At this stage there appears to be no reason why the Applicant would want to kill his wife who he had been married to for ten years and with whom he has three children.

4. For the reasons given above, the case of the applicant requires further enquiry and falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the amount of Rs. 100,000/- (rupees one lac) and a P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. WA/A-67/Sindh Bail granted.