1994 P Cr (PLP)

Abdul Sattar Chohan for AA.-G for the State, Date of hearing: 28th October, 1993 This bail application has been filed on behalf of accused Ganga Ram Oad who has been challaned by the police in Crime No.82/92 for offence under section 302, P.P.C. and the case is pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur for trial. A bail application was filed before the trial Court which was rejected by-the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur vide his order, dated 24-4-1993 and hence this application has been filed before this Court on behalf of the applicant. The prosecution story as stated in the first information report lodged by one Khan Chand is that the applicant Ganga Ram is related to him and he resides in his house in the same village. It is alleged in the first information report that the accused suspected deceased Prenichand son of first informant to be on illicit terms with Mst. Putli and on account of this suspicion the accused (applicant) was not on good terms with the complainant and used to threat them that he will kill Premchand. On the night of incident at about 1-30 a.m. they got up on cries of Premchand and saw the applicant Ganga Ram had a spade in his hand and within their view Gaaga Ram caused the injuries on the neck of the deceased and said that he was going away after murdering Putli and Premchand. After that they saw that Premchand and Putli were lying dead. The complainant then went to the police station and lodged the report. The police after usual investigation challaned the accused to stand trial in the Court of law for offence under section 302, P.P.C. The main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant has given judicial confession on 21-7-1992 wherein he has clearly stated that he had killed Mst. Putli his wife and deceased Premchand on grave and sudden provocation. According to the learned counsel If or the applicant the deceased was nephew of the applicant. He has further stated that the applicant had given confession voluntarily which at the most disclose offence under section 304(11) of P.P.C. as such he is entitled to the grant of bail. Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that the accused has given confession admitting therein that he had killed his wife Mst. Putli and deceased Premchand as Karo and Kari. However, according to him the case of the prosecution is that Premchand and Mst. Putli have been killed by the accused merely on suspicion. According to him the dead body of Mst. Putli was lying on the separate cot about 20 paces away from the cot where deceased Premchand was lying dead. According to the learned counsel for the State Mst. Putli was found having clothes on her person at the time when the dead body was seen in the presence of the police. He has further contended that even the dead body of deceased Premchand was not lying naked when the police saw his dead body. According to him all the eye-witnesses who are related to the applicant have clearly supported the case of the prosecution as stated in the first information report. He has further contended that the accused had even absconded after commission of the murder of Premchand and Mst. Putli and was arrested after few days after the commission of this crime as such the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail at this stage and he is liable for punishment under section 302, P.P.C. which comes within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I have carefully heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and also of the learned counsel for the State. I have also perused the order of the learned trial Judge. I have also gone through the first information report and also the entire material placed before me including the police statements Mashirnama and other material collected by the police during the course of investigation. It is the settled principle of law that if the only evidence in a case consists of confession of an accused person and there is no other ocular or circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with crime the confession must be accepted or rejected as a whole but if on the other hand apart from the confession there is evidence whether ocular or circumstantial which contradicts a part of confession, it is permissible to a Court to accept that part of the confession which is consistent with the evidence and reject that part of confession which is inconsistent with it. In this case apart from the confession there is oral evidence of prosecution witnesses and other circumstantial evidence connecting the applicant (accused) with the crime. The case has not yet proceeded and only E charge has been framed against the applicant uptil now for offence under section 302, P.P.C. by the trial Court. On the basis of tentative appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution and without going deeper into the merits of the case at this stage I am of the view that no case has been made out by the accused for the grant of bail. The bail application is therefore, accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./G-355/K????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Bail refused.