2023 PLP 1 (YLRN)
GULFAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 1 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GULFAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 1 (YLRN) (GULFAM — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shafqat Raza Thaheem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(iii) & 334
Shajjah-i-khafifah, mutalahimah, itlaf-i-udw
Petitioner was under the allegation that he attacked upon the complainant and bit his right ear with his teeth and later inflicted a hammer blow which hit on the face of complainant
Obviously, tissue was not an organ nor it could be termed as limb; thus, considering helix and cartilaginous as limbs would amount to inflate the criminal liability of the petitioner
Even the doctor had not pointed out as to which of the limb was affected by above injury, therefore, said observation of doctor at this stage of the proceedings was not appreciated which would finally be thrashed by the Trial Court after summoning and examining the doctor
Applicability of S. 334, P.P.C., was under dense clouds in the circumstances
If missing tissue affected the functioning, power and capacity of any organ permanently then at the most offence under S. 336, P.P.C., "Itlaf-i-Salahivat-i-Udw" could be attracted but at present even such observation of doctor was also not available on the record
Remaining offence under S.337-F(iii), P.P.C., was punishable upto three years which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497 of Cr.P.C.
On the face of it, the petitioner had made out a case for bail after arrest on the touchstone of further inquiry as contemplated under S. 497(2) of Cr.P.C.
Petitioner was behind the bars since 07.03.2022 without any progress in the trial, as such, he could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period
Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances. [Para. 4 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.
Through this petition, petitioner namely Gulfam has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No.183 dated 01.03.2022 registered under sections 337-F(iii), 337-A(i), 334, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Duniapur, District Lodhran.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The petitioner was under the allegation that he attacked upon the complainant and bit his right ear with his teeth and later inflicted a hammer blow which hit on the face of complainant. Injury on face was declared falling within the mischief of section 337-A(i), P.P.C. which is bailable whereas injury on right ear without any declaration was later termed as Itlaf-i-Udw by the doctor punishable under section 334, P.P.C. This observation of doctor runs counter to the description of injury which is as under:-- "Upper 2/3rd part of right helix along with cartilagenious (sic) part of right ear is avulsed and missing, Antitrageous cartilage is exposed, ear lobule and trageous is intact, hearing intact. 6 x 2 cm in size lacerated wound and bleeding margins." This description of injury does not correspond to the definition given in section 333 of P.P.C. which reads as under:- "Itlaf-i-udw. Whoever dismembers, amputates, severs any limb or organ of the body of another person is aid to cause itlaf-i-udw." (Bold and underline supplied) From the above definition it transpires that neither the ear was dismembered, amputated or severed nor any limb of the body. Helix along with cartilaginous part of right ear are the tissues as per information contained in DORLAND'S POCKET MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 29th edition. As per medical literature, tissue is defined as under:-- "A tissue is a group of cells, in close proximity, organized to perform one or more specific functions. There are four basic tissue types defined by their morphology and function: epithelial tissue, connective tissue, muscle tissue, and nervous tissue. Epithelial tissue creates protective boundaries and is involved in the diffusion of ions and molecules. Connective tissue underlies and supports other tissue types. Muscle tissue contracts to initiate movement in the body. Nervous tissue transmits and integrates information through the central and peripheral nervous systems." Above definition and explanation of tissue hardly helps to label it as complete organ or limb of the human body; though such tissues cannot be represented through a detailed literature in this order but to throw light where actually helix and cartilaginous (tissues) positioned at ear, following diagrams are helpful.
4. Obviously, tissue is not an organ nor it can be termed as limb. Therefore, considering helix and cartilaginous as limbs would amount to inflate the criminal liability of the petitioner. Even the doctor has not pointed out which of the limb was affected by above injury, therefore, this observation of doctor at this stage of the proceedings is not appreciated which would finally be thrashed by the learned trial Court after summoning and examining the doctor. Therefore, applicability of section 334, P.P.C. is under dense clouds in the circumstances. If missing of any tissue affects the functioning, power and capacity of any organ permanently then at the most offence under section 336, P.P.C. "Itlaf-i-Salahiyat-i-Udw" could be attracted but at present even such observation of doctor is also not available on the record. The remaining offence under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. is punishable upto three years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. On the face of it, the petitioner has made out a case for bail after arrest on the touchstone of further inquiry as contemplated under Section 497 (2) of Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars since 07.03.2022 without any progress in the trial, as such, he cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Jahanzeb and others v. State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtun-khwa Peshawar and another" (2021 SCMR 63), with reference to Section 497, Cr.P.C., has held as under:-- "Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals the intent of the legislature disclosing pre-condition to establish the word "guilt" against whom accusation is levelled has to be established on the basis of reasonable ground, however, if there exists any possibility to have a second view of the material available on the record then the case advanced against whom allegation is levelled is entitled for the relief in the spirit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C."
5. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. JK/G-21/L Bail grante