1977 P Cr (PLP)

S.498‑Bail‑Attempted murder‑Injured prosecution witnesses receiving a solitary simple injury‑Bail granted, in circumstances of case.‑[Bail]. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Applicant. Ghulam Ali Memon, A.‑G. for the State. The applicant is facing trial alongwith his father Karo for offences under sections 307, 326, 506/114, P. P. C. 2. According to the prosecution, there was bickering between complain ant Ghulam Hussain and his brother Allah Dad on one side and the applicant and his father Karo on the other over the straying of the animals on the lease hold lands of the complainant. It is alleged that on account of this the accused had asked the complainant to leave the land. On 7‑5‑1976, at about 3‑00 p.m. in the afternoon, while the complainant and his brother alongwith two others were going from their village to Dadu town and when they reached their land they saw buffaloes of the applicant's father near their cultivation: Upon this, Allah Dad ran towards the buffaloes and removed them from the cultivation. In the meantime it is alleged that the applicant and his father Karo came out of their houses and after an oral scuffle and exchange of abuses the applicant who is said to have been armed with a hatchet, at the instigation of his father gave a sharp side hatchet blow to Allah Dad which the latter received on his neck. The witnesses ran towards Allah Dad upon which the accused are said to have run away. The injury on the person of Allah Dad was examined by the. Medical Officer and after reserving his opinion he has finally opined that it is simple in nature. The dimensions of the injury were 4 x 1 x 1 on the left side of the neck. In his preliminary report the Medical Officer had stated that the nature of the injury would be communicated after X‑ray exami nation. The final opinion of the Medical Officer was communicated to the S. H. O. in which he has opined that the nature of injury is simple as shown in the X‑ray plate and report. 3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that in the circumstances of this case the offence is; any committed by the applicant would fall under section 324 and in no case under section 307 as there is only one injury inflict ed by the applicant. It is further submitted that the incident was the result of a quarrel over the straying of animals in the field of the complainant and, therefore, premeditation is ruled out. 4. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel and the circumstances of the case I feel that for the present the medical opinion being that the injury is simple and the fact that only one injury was inflicted the applicant is entitled to bail. I would accordingly order that the applicant be released on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000 and P. R. in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.