MUHAMMAD SIBTAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Sibtain, who was charged under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, attacked the deceased, with the petitioner specifically accused of raising a lalkara and inflicting kicks and fist blows. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the medical evidence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was unarmed, and the medical evidence regarding the deceased's injuries—which were internal and inconsistent with kicks or fist blows—contradicted the prosecution's narrative of the petitioner's role. The key principle laid down is that where the medical evidence contradicts the specific role attributed to an accused in the FIR, particularly regarding the nature of injuries, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of injuries consistent with the alleged role of an accused justify the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's version of the physical assault?
- Can a case be considered one of further inquiry when the accused is alleged to be empty-handed while co-accused are armed with lethal weapons?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
'SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,3, dated 3-1-2009 registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Gunjial, District Khushab.
2. The prosecution story as stated in the F.I.R. Precisely, is that Muhammad Sibtain petitioner and Mst.Aisha Bibi both empty handed came to the place of occurrence along with Muhammad Saglain, who was armed with Sota. The petitioner raised lalkara that they had arrived to avenge the insult. The petitioner and Mst.Aisha Bibi caught hold of Noor Muhammad complainant by his hair and threw him on the ground. They started giving him kicks and fist blows. Muhammad Saqlain gave repeated Sota blows to Noor Muhammad hitting him on the right and left flanks, back and under the umbilicus. On alarm raised by Noor Muhammad the witnesses arrived there. On seeing them, the accused decamped from the place of occurrence. The motive of the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. Was that Noor Muhammad suspected that his daughter Mst.Ruqqia Bibi had illicit relation with Saqlain. He had stopped Saqlain to pass through the street in front of his house.
This annoyed the accused who committed Qatl-e-amd of Noor Muhammad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that role of raising lalkara and giving only kicks and fist blows to the deceased was attributed to the petitioner. No such injury was noticed during postmortem examination of the deceased. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. It was a case of further inquiry, hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail. Reliance was placed on 1982 PCr.LJ 694, 2004 YLR 2262, 2007 YLR 349, 1995 PCr.LJ 912; 1999 PCr.LJ 1874 and 1995 SCM R 343.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned DPG submitted that petitioner was named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. Specific role was assigned to him. Death of the deceased was caused due to rapture of liver, as a cumulative effect of the injuries inflicted by all the three accused. It was added that the occurrence was fully supported by the eyewitnesses. The petitioner has been found guilty by the police. Challan has been submitted in the Court. It was pre-medicated occurrence, hence, the petitioner was fully liable for the offence and he was not entitled to any concession.
Reliance is placed on 1995 PCr.LJ 1187, 2002 PCr.LJ 1277, 1999 PCr.LJ 343, 1979 SCM R 65, 1981 SCM R 1092 and 2006 SCM R 1265.
5. I have considered the respective contentions of the parties in the light of facts on record.
6. The motive was alleged against Muhammad Saqlain, co-accused of the petitioner who came to the place of occurrence armed with a Sota. Admittedly, the petitioner was empty handed. Had he come to the place of occurrence in furtherance of common intention of his co-accused, he, too, would have brought at least a Sota if no other lethal weapon was available. General allegation of giving fist blows and kicks to the deceased is levelled against the petitioner. The external injuries present on the, person of the deceased and noted at the time of post-mortem examination could not be caused with fists or kicks. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were in the form of bruises, covering the whole portion of body, from scapula to buttock which could not be inflicted by the empty handed, petitioner, Possibly the case could be result of dragging but that is not the' case of prosecution. If at all dragging was there, how the internal injuries were sustained by the deceased, is again a' question for which there is no plausible answer. Merely this fact is sufficient to' distinguish the case of the petitioner' from the facts mentioned in the case-law relied upon by the complainant. The case of the petitioner is held to be one of further inquiry, hence, he is allowed bail in the sum of Rupees one lac (Rs,1,00,000), with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Zamir vs The State 2021 SHC 666