MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs STATE & another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Hussain, who was charged with trespassing and inflicting injuries upon his ex-wife and her sons. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the apparent contradictions between the prosecution's version of events and the medical evidence. The Lahore High Court observed that the F.I.R. alleged the occurrence took place at 9:00 p.m. on 12.5.2014, yet the medical report indicated the complainant arrived at the hospital at 10:00 a.m. on the same date with wounds that were already in a healing or healed stage, suggesting the incident occurred significantly earlier. Finding that the medical evidence fundamentally conflicted with the F.I.R. and that the recovery of the weapon (a Kassi) was not blood-stained, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, establishing the principle that significant discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence constitute valid grounds for admitting an accused to post-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Does a significant discrepancy between the time of occurrence alleged in the F.I.R. and the medical evidence regarding the state of injuries entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be admitted to bail when the medical report suggests the injuries were sustained at a time different from the prosecution's narrative?
- Does the recovery of a non-blood-stained weapon at the instance of the accused constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The complainant, Mst. Sughran Mai has alleged in the F.I.R. That her ex-husband, Muhammad Hussain (petitioner) trespassed on her house, being armed with Kassi at 9.00 p.m. On 12.5.2014 and inflicted multiple injuries on her person, besides causing injuries to her sons Aamir and Shehroz on arrival of the witnesses, he ran away; she remained unconscious, therefore, she reported the matter belatedly.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the contents of the medico-legal report of the complainant-lady do not corroborate the story of F.I.R.
Rather, perusal thereof, paints the situation a bit blurred and hazy for the prosecution. The alleged occurrence took place at 9.00 p.m. On 12.5.2014, whereas medical officer has mentioned date and time of arrival of the injured in the hospital as "12.5.2014 (10.00 a.m.)" in the medico-legal report, which reveals three injuries, one on the vertex of head, the other on the right arm and the third one on her right knee. Interestingly, the medical officer found her wounds either at the healing stage or fully healed. The description of Injuries No, 1 and 3 is important in this regard. How could injuries of the complainant show signs of healing at "10.00 a.m. On.
12.5.2014", if she had received the said injuries at "9.00 p.m. On 12.5.2014". The time of the alleged occurrence and that of the prosecutrix medical examination are nugatory inter-se. The alleged occurrence must have taken place about a week before 12.5.2014 and complainant's version that it took place on the said date does not look convincing, at this stage. The medical evidence in its present form is massively in conflict with the F.I.R. Story. The petitioner is behind the bars since 18.5.2014 and his further incarceration may be of no use to the prosecution's case, as Kassi, not stained with blood, has already been recovered at his instance on 21.5.2014. His case squarely calls for further probe into his guilt, within the scope of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, this application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.