JUMMA vs STATE
This matter involves a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Jumma, who was arrested in connection with a road accident resulting in the death of a police official. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the contradictions in the prosecution's case regarding the cause of death, conflicting medical reports, and the absence of a post-mortem examination. The Sindh High Court held that the absence of a post-mortem examination and contradictory medical evidence render the applicability of the penal provision invoked by the prosecution doubtful at this stage, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. The court laid down the principle that where the cause of death is unverified due to the lack of a post-mortem and contradictory medical reports in a vehicular accident case, further inquiry into the accused's guilt arises, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of a post-mortem examination create doubt about the direct cause of death in a vehicular accident case for the purpose of bail?
- Whether contradictory medical reports regarding the cause of injury and death entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is bail to be granted when the applicability of the specific penal section charged by the prosecution becomes doubtful during pre-trial evaluation?
- Section 320, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Applicant Jumma, driver of vehicle Bearing No, LS-8029, arrested on 25.11.2007 under Crime No, 179/2007 in a case of road accident wherein one HC Muhammad Iqbal lost his life, has moved this Bail Application.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the very lodging of FIR by complainant Abdul Rasheed claiming himself, to be eye-witness of the incident is based on incorrect statement as in the Zimni report of 25.11.2007 his name as the police official deputed for traffic control duty is not appearing along-with other police officials posted at the place of incident It is further contended that the medical report as placed on record is also contrary to the prosecution version. As per medical report dated 10.12.2007 of Agha Khan University Hospital Karachi deceased died because of his small intestinal injury. Whereas in medico legal centre, Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, C.D.G.K, Nazimabad, Karachi injured is shown to have received injury on back of his thigh, which do not find support neither from the certificate of 10.12.2007 nor in the medical certificate issued on 26.11.2007.
3. It is further contended that even if, prosecution's case of road accident is taken into consideration then also case will fall under Section 320 PPC whereas at the first instance FIR was lodged under Section 324/337 PPC but in the challan submitted on 12.01.2006 it has again been converted under Section 316 PPC, which is absolutely not applicable in the present case. Referring to number of authorities, it is argued by learned counsel that bail in bailable offence is to be granted as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace. After death of injured HC Muhammad Iqbal no postmortem was conducted and in such event reliance is made on 1976 P.Cr.L.J. 405 (Muhammad Bakhsh versus The State) wherein it is observed that absence of post-mortem creates doubt about cause of death, because it cannot be safely inferred that the death of the deceased was the direct result of the injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident. Postmortem, examination was necessary to bring out the fact that the death had occurred due to injuries received by the deceased on account of said accident. Observation made in 1976 P.Cr.L.J 405 were also based on Abdul Latif V.
4. State, 1972 Cr.L.J 1095 wherein it is held that:-- "A formal post-mortem examination was however necessary to find out the exact cause of his death. As a result of this unfortunate omission the prosecution had failed to establish that the death of Ajaib Khan deceased was the direct result of the inimies suffered by him on account of the rush or negligent act of the petitioner. He could be held guilty of an offence under Section 304- A, PPC only after it was proved by the necessary medical evidence that the resultant injuries were the immediate, proximate and efficient cause, the casua causans and not merely the cause sine qua non of death, without intervention of any other negligence."
5. In reply to it learned State counsel has not been able to controvert any of the ground satisfactorily.
6. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Applicant appeal to reason that even if, case of prosecution is that while deceased was chasing to applicant he hit deceased motorcycle on its right side with his vehicle, is taken as correct, the motor vehicle accident report reflect contrary, as if it meet accident from front side. Still that does not bring the case within proviso of Section 316 because of contradictory medical reports as to cause of death and in absence of post-mortem applicability of Section 316 becomes doubtful at this stage. In such eventuality benefit of doubt goes in favour of applicant.
7. In view of foregoing reasons, Bail Application is allowed. Applicant be released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 4,00,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.