1996 PLP 2038 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 2038 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zahid Hussain Bokhari, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 2038 (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 1996 PLP 2038 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zahid Hussain Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 2038 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IKRAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Muhammad Sultan Alam for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/337‑A(vi)/34‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused had allegedly caused a grievous injury by a lethal weapon on the head of the victim which was a vital part of the body‑‑‑Victim had to undergo operation in the hospital and overwhelming medical evidence showed serious damage having been caused to his skull‑‑‑Offences with which the accused was charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(I), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State.
Judgment & Decree
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was innocent that Maqsood injured was discharged from the hospital after 9 days, that no offences under section 324/337‑F(vi) were made out against the petitioner; that the case against the petitioner requires further inquiry with regard to the nature of offence and the participation of the petitioner in the occurrence and that the petitioner was in judicial lock‑up for the last about 3 months and the provisions of section 344, Cr.P.C. were violated and that the offences alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned State Counsel argued that the petitioner inflicted a serious head blow on the person of Maqsood Ahmad and that he also repeated blow by causing injury to Noor Ahmad and that for so many days Maqsood injured P.W. was not in a position to make a statement; that on receipt of final result, injury on the head of Maqsood Ahmad was found grievous and declared as Shajjah‑e- Damighah and resultantly offence unders section 337-A(vi) was added and that the offences alleged against the petitioner fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel with care.
5. The occurrence took place at 11 p.m. and the matter was reported to the Police promptly within 4 hours with all material details. Injured Maqsood Ahmad was not in a position to make any statement on 15‑1‑1996, 17‑1‑1996 and 22‑1‑1996. According to the report of Dr. Sajjad Ahmad M.B.,B.S., Assistant Radiologist, Nishtar Hospital, Multan multiple fracture lines were visualized in the wall of the skull involving temporal bone. He has also observed multiple bone gaps, which represented cromiotomy operation marks.
6. The report of the Radiologist clearly indicates that Maqsood Ahmad injured received serious head injury and consequently the doctor declared this injury as Shajjah‑e‑Damighah. Section 337(3)(vi) provides that whoever causes shajjah: "By causing fracture of skull of the victim and the wound ruptures the membrane of brain is said to cause Shajja‑i‑Damighah and section 337 A(vi) prescribes that whoever by doing any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person causes‑‑‑‑‑‑ (V) Shajjah‑i Damighah to any person, shall be liable to Arsh which shall be half of Diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 14 years as Ta'zir."
7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in the presence of overwhelming medical evidence. The victim has to undergo operation in the hospital and after the operation of head of Maqsood Ahmad certain bone gaps were evident in the X‑ray report. The membranes of the skull were cut and the froth was coming from the mouth of Maqsood Ahmad injured and he was feeling difficulty in breathing at the time of his medical examination.
8. The police during the investigation has added section 337‑A(vi) and offences under sections 324 and 337‑A(vi) fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The intention of the accused can be gathered from the weapon used, part of the body selected for causing injury and the nature of the injury itself. In this case the weapon used was lethal. The part of the body was a vital organ like head and nature of injury was of course serious. Prima facie there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for 10 ten years or more.
9. For what has been stated above, this petition has no merits which is I C accordingly dismissed. 10. 1 would like to make it clear that all the observations made in this order are to be taken for the purpose of disposal of this bail petition alone and would have no bearing at the stage of trial. The learned trial Judge shall form his opinion on the basis of evidence produced before him. N.H.Q./R-12/L Bail refused.