1985 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Asghar for Advocate‑General for the State. Ch. Ghulam Bari Saleemi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 7th February, 1978. A case under section 302/34, P.P.C. has been registered against the petitioner and his companion on the allegation that at 8.30 a.m. on 26‑5‑1977 when Muhammad Latif complainant alongwith Muhammad Latif son of Ghulam Nabi was going to a shop for purchasing breakfast near the shop of Dr. Balal, the petitioner and his companion Muhammad Khalid armed with knives were seen coming behind Muhammad Azhar deceased. The petitioner is alleged to have given four successive knife blows on the chest, belly and left arm of the deceased whereas Muhammad Khalid gave one knife blow to the deceased from behind. The deceased receiving the injuries fell down and the petitioner and his companion ran away alongwith their knives. The deceased in injured condition was taken to the hospital but he died there.

2. The motive is that a day earlier in the evening the petitioner and his companion had quarrelled with the deceased and Muhammad Mazhar on the shop of the deceased and the deceased was threatened to be murdered. Muhammad Latif, complainant in the F.I.R. stated that the names of the petitioner and his companion were known afterwards but he did not disclose who gave their names. Learned counsel has argued that since the petitioner and his companion were not previously known to the complainant holding of identification parade was necessary and since it was not done, it cannot be said that it was the petitioner who caused the injuries to the deceased. This is true that identification parade has not been held but the complainant is not the only eye‑witness. Muhammad Tufail Pathan whose name is mentioned in the F.I.R. has supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P.C.

3. Learned counsel has further argued that in the F.I.R. it has not been disclosed who gave the names of the petitioner and his companion and that Muhammad Tufail did not say in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. that he had given the names to the complainant. Muhammad Tufail did not say so in his statement recorded by the police because he may not have been inquired this question. He will be examined at the trial and if such a question is put to him and he states that he did not tell the names of the petitioner and his companion to Muhammad Latif complainant or any other person such a point may arise for consideration at that time.

4. Alibi has also been pleaded and in support of it photostat copies of the hospital record at Karachi have been produced which show that one Shafique Beg was attended by the doctor as outdoor patient on 24‑5‑1977, was kept under observation on 25‑5‑1977 and was discharged at 9.00 p.m. on 26th of May, 1977 which is the date of the occurrence. The father's name of Shafique Beg is not given in the said copies of the hospital record, therefore, the question of identification arises in this case. No identification mark is given as usually is not given of the patients. Identification mark is given when some certificate is to be issued. Unless the doctor who atttended Muhammad Shafique Beg is examined and he states that it was the petitioner, it cannot be said that the record produced pertains to the petitioner. The evidence of the alibi therefore, at this stage cannot be considered for the purpose of bail.

5. As from the F.I.R. and the evidence of the eye‑witnesses a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, it cannot be said that he is not connected with an offfence punishable with death. The petition therefore, is dismissed. M.Y.H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.