Mohsin vs State and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of robbery and causing injuries in FIR No. 471/2018. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the apparent conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence, alongside the evidentiary value of the alleged recoveries. The Court observed that the medical report indicated the injuries sustained by the victims were five to seven days old, which contradicted the prosecution's claim regarding the time of the occurrence. Relying on the principle that a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrants the benefit of doubt for the accused even at the bail stage, the Court held that the case required further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovery of the weapon was not corroborated by forensic matching, and the recovery of cash lacked specificity. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued incarceration served no useful purpose as he had already joined the investigation.
- Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
- Is further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranted when medical reports contradict the prosecution's timeline of an occurrence?
- Does the lack of forensic matching for a recovered weapon weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application the Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 471/2018 dated 13.11.2018 registered at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan, for offences under Sections 394/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/41 1, PPC.
2. Briefly , the allegation against the Petitioner is that on 13.11.2018 at about 12:30 a.m. the Petitioner and his co- cused committed robbery in the Complainant's house and took away cash amounting to Rs. 500,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 21/2 tolas. During the occurrence the Complainant and his brothers Manzoor Ahmad and Munir Ahmad were injured.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The Petitioner is nominated in the FIR. According to the prosecution, he was wearing a mask but it slipped off and the Complainant and the PWs identified him on the spot. The alleged occurre nce took place on 13.11.2018 at about 12:30 a.m. but the age of injuries of the Complainant and the PWs does not correspond with the time. All the injured were taken to Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Jalapur Pirwala, where the Medical Officer examined them and opined that the injuries of Manzoor and Abdul Shakoor were 5/7 days old. It is trite that if there is a conflict in medical evidence and ocular account, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused even at the bail stage.
Reliance is placed on Syed Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State (1997 SCMR 32) and Syed Khalid Hussain Shah v.
The State and another (2014 SCMR 12). Hence, further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. is required to determine the petitioner's guilt.
5. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that rifle, the weapon of offence, and Rs. 30,000/- out of the stolen money were recovered from the Petitioner which are sufficient to incriminate him. So far as the rifle is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that empties found at the spot matched with it. On the other hand, the alleged recovery of cash is of little consequence because the Complainant has not mentioned the denomination of his currency notes in the FIR.
6. The Petitioner is incarcerated since 27-5-2019. He has joined the investigation and is not required by the police for any further C probe. No useful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bars.
7. For what has been discussed above, this application is allowed . The Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.