1985 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Munir Hussain Shah for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th August, 1984. The prosecution case is that Muhammad Yousaf was a tenant of Khuda Bakhsh. A water channel passed from the land of Khuda Bakhsh to irrigate the lands of Moor Muhammad petitioner. About three months before the occurrence Khuda Bakhsh demolished the said water channel, thereby stopping the flow of water in the lands of Moor Muhammad. In retaliation Moor Muhammad stopped Yousaf deceased from passing through his lands on a tractor which resulted in exchange of abuses between them. It is alleged that on 5‑3‑1984 at 8/9 a.m. Jameel and Ramzan were passing from the boundary of the land on account of which Muhammad Yousaf deceased abused them. At this both of them went to their house and short while thereafter Jameel and Ramzan accused returned to the spot alongwith Khalil, Muhammad Sharif and Moor Muhammad armed with sticks. All the accused challenged whereafter Jameel gave a Sots, blow on the head of Yousaf and Sharif gave another Sota blow on the head of Yousaf. Faqiria and Mazir P.Ws. reached at the spot, and rescued Muhammad Yousaf deceased. They were given injuries by Ramzan, Jameel Ahmed and Moor Muhammad petitioners. Yousaf and Faqiria who were lying on the ground were given more blows by all the five accused with their respective weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by Ali Ahmed and Muhammad Sharif. It is stated in the F.I.R. that Moor Muhammad petitioner also got some injuries during the occurrence. fhe petitioners were arrested and being unsuccessful in their plea far bail in the lower Court have come up to this Court for bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the petition on behalf of Jameel and Sharif accused. It to contended on behalf of Ramzan, Moor Muhammad and Khalil petitioners that the allegation against them is that they inflicted simple injuries to Faqiria and Nazir P.Ws. that the injuries on the persons of accused Moor Muhammad, Muhammad Ramzan and Sharif have not been explained in the F.I.R. and finally that from the facts of the case the common intention with the other two accused cannot be gathered. It is, therefore, argued that the case of petitioners is that of further inquiry.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Ghulam Nabi v. The State 1979 S C M R 24 and Ghulam Muhammad v. The State 1977 P Cr. L J 181.

4. The learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition for bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the injuries on the person of accused are concerned, it may be observed that the F.I.R. was recorded on the statement of Muhammad Sharif P.W. who was not an eye‑witness of the occurrence. In the F.I.R. it is stated that Moor Muhammad accused received some injuries on his person. This being the situation, the omission to explain injuries in F.I.R. on the person of the three petitioners is not material.

6. In the F.I.R. Jameel and Sharif were attributed specific injuries to the deceased. Thereafter, it is stated that when Muhammad Yousaf deceased and Faqiria P.W. fell down and all the accused caused injuries on their persons. Yousaf received seven injuries while Faqiria received six injuries and Nazir received two injuries on his person. Two injuries on the person of Yousaf and one on the person of Faqiria were grievous in nature.

7. In view of this, it cannot be said that all the petitioners did not share common intention to cause injuries to the deceased and witnesses.

8. I have gone through the cases cited by learned counsel and find that those are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. S. G. D.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.