1990 P Cr (PLP)

S. 498

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34

Bail, grant of

Complainant party not only did not explain in F.I.R. injuries suffered by accused party during incident some of which were of extensive dimension, but also had completely suppressed their own part in the incident which had cast a doubt on veracity of prosecution story and had lent support to accused's contention that complainant party in fact was aggressor and that accused had inflicted injuries in self defence

Since benefit of any doubt arising even at bail stage was to be given to accused, bail was granted to accused.

[ Benefit of doubt. Amir v. State P L D 1972 SC 277 and Nadaar v. Jamait Khan P L D 1968 SC 310 ref Sh. Sarfraz Ahmad for Petitioners. Raja Aziz-ud-Din for the State This is an application by Muhammad Shat and Bashir for the grant of bail under section 498, Cr.P.C. They are accused of an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C:.

2. According to the F.I.R. both the parties were cultivating certain piece of land jointly. A dispute, however, arose between them. On the day of the occurrence the accused party came over to the land where the complainant party was already present and started ploughing, the land. They were asked to desist, but they did not pay any heed. Thereupon Muhammad Shafi, petitioner, suddenly brought out a knife from his Dab and gave a blow at the chest of Yaqub Masih deceased. He also gave some other blows but Yaqub Masih (deceased) warded them of on his arms. During this incident Bashir petitioner, the brother of Muhammad Shafi petitioner also took out his knife and raised a Lalkara saying finish him today, so that the dispute comes to an eat. Thereafter Bashir petitioner also wanted to attack Yaqub Masih but Lal Mai y complainant rushed, caught hold of him and felled him down on the ground. While, in this position Bashir petitioner succeeded in giving a knife blow on the right leg of Lal Masih complainant. Both the accused then ran away alongwith their weapons. Yaqub Masih was taken on a cot towards the hospital but, died in the; way.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is admitted in the F.I.R. itself for the petitioners were in joint cultivation and that a dispute had arisen over it, According to him it was the complainant party who was the aggressor and had attacked the two petitioners when they were ploughing the land in dispute. In support of this contention he has pointed out the medical report (i.e. Annexure 'C'), with regard to the medical examination of Muhammad Shaft accused/petitioner. According to this report Muhammad Shaft petition had suffered 10 injuries during the incident some of which are of extensive dimension e.g. injuries Nos.3, 4 and

16. Injury No.l is located on the head. Similarly, Bashir accused (petitioner No.2) is also found to have suffered two injuries though minor in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the complainant party had failed to explain these injuries in the F.I.R. and had completely suppressed their own part in the incident. This casts a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story and lends support to the petitioner's contention that the complainant party was, in fact the aggressor and they (i.e. the petitioners) had inflicted the injuries to self-defence. As held by the Supreme Court in Amir v. State P L D 1972 SC 277, the benefit of any doubt arising even at bail stage should be given to the accused. It may be mentioned that as observed by the Supreme Court in Nadara v. Jamait Khan P L D 1968 SC 310, plea of self-defence is one of the factors that can be considered by the Court at the bail stage. As such, I grant them bail in the sum of Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot.

4. It may be mentioned that no observation in this order should be considered as binding on the Courts below who shall decide the case in accordance with the evidence recorded before it. H.B.T./M-1982/L Bail granted.