LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant Liaqat Ali has applied for grant of bail in Crime No.71 of 2001 in an offence under sections 324, 147, 148 and 114, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Gambat. The bail application on behalf of the applicant was moved in the trial Court which was dismissed on 18‑10-2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Gambat. Hence this application has been moved on similar grounds.

2. The facts in brief leading to this case are that complainant Niaz Hussain lodged his F.I.R. on 1‑6‑2001 stating therein that he has six acres of land and his uncle Panjal is cultivating the land alongwith his brothers Muhammad Bachal; Ismail Nimano, Mushtaq, Mehar Ali: Raham Ali, Subhar, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad being the relatives of the complainant. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the accused party used to issue threats by not cultivating the land and there was constant demand for handing over the said land to them else they would be dealt. That on 1‑6‑2001 when the complainant alongwith his brothers and relatives had gone to the lands for working and rotation of water at about 1645 hours, accused persons namely Din Muhammad, Ghulam Muhammad, Abdul Haq, Shaukat. Liaqat Ali (the applicant), Ramzan, Qurban having hatchets except Din Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad were empty‑handed. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that Gulsher, Suleman. Tinku, Ahmed, Haji Ilyas, Qadirdad and Afzal were armed with lathies whereas Din Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad instigated other accused to kill them. Accused Shaukat caused hatchet blows anti accused Afzal caused lathi blows to Mehar Ali whereas Abdul Haq who was armed with hatchet and Gulsher who was armed with Lathi caused blows to Ismail alias Nimano, applicant Liaqat and Ramzan caused hatchet blows to Bachal whereas Qurban Ali who was armed with hatchet and Suleman armed with lathi caused blows to Raham Ali. Accused Tinku, Ahmed, Haji Ilyas and Qadirdad caused lathi blows to Mushtaq and Subhar. On the cries of the complainant party, villagers namely Ghulam Ali and others reached at the vardat and accused seeing them ran away alongwith their weapons. The injured were taken to the Civil Hospital, Gambat and the F.I.R. of the incident was loged. It is further disclosed in the F.I.R. that the accused persons due to dispute over land have caused injuries to the brothers and nephews of the complainant with their common object. After due investigation of the case, the charge‑sheet was filed in the Court on 23‑6‑2001 and during the investigation co‑accused namely Din Muhammad, Ghulam Muhammad, Abdul Haq, Gulsher. Suleman. Ahmed, Qadirdad and Haji Ilyas were let off whereas the charge‑sheet was filed against six persons.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that injured Bachal was examined by the Medical Officer on 1‑6‑2001 and only head injury was seen by the Medical Officer and the injured was referred to Civil Hospital, Sukkur. Injured Bachal was examined by the Radiologist (Dr. Abdul Wahid Abbasi) and on the basis of three X- ray reports dated 4‑6‑2001, the expert opined as under:‑

4. X‑RAY SKULL/APP LAT VIEW.

5. "Prominent intro gravel vascular marring. "

6. "No traumatic Bony lesion seen in these skiagravs over skull vault bones."

7. X‑RAY HAND APP LAT VIEW.

8. "No traumatic Bony lesion seen in this skuagam. "

9. It is further contended by the learned counsel that surprisingly the Medical Officer issued another Medical Certificate on 11‑6‑2001, and opined that the injured has sustained six injuries. The injuries described in the said certificate are reproduced hereinbelow:

10. "Head, injuries.

(1) Lcerated wound on skull on Right parietal Bone 3 x 1" deep Bone.

(2) A lacerated wound on skull on paradial Bone deeper Bone exposed 3 x 1".

(3) A lacerated wound on occipital Bone deep Bone.

(4) A brows eye on Right Eye.

(5) Bhut injury on occipital bone

(6) A lacerated wound Right side of all injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance.

11. It is further argued that according to the F.I.R., the applicant was armed with hatchet and there is no hatchet injury on the person of injured Bachal whereas as per Medical Certificate all injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance. The Medical Certificate dated 2‑6‑2001 is silent in respect of the number of injuries as well as the weapon used. It is further urged that the both Medical Certificates are contradictory as the first Medical Certificate shows one injury and in the other certificate there are six injuries.

12. Mr. Tunio. Assistant Advocate General has frankly and rightly conceded that this is a case of further enquiry as the first Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Officer is in conflict with the Medical Certificate issued on 11‑6‑200.1 and according to the Mashirnama of injuries, the Investigating Officer has seen three injuries one on head other on eye and third one on the cheek. Dr. Ghulam Rasool, Medical Officer is present and states that the injured was unconscious and all injuries were not noted due to the condition of the injured and he was referred for expert opinion and after receipt of Radiologist Report, the injuries were noted on the white paper on the first day of appearance, the same were incorporated in the Medical Certificate on 6‑11‑2001.

13. Mr. Abbas Ali Maitlo, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the injured is present in the Court and he has sustained numerous injuries on head which can be verified.

14. I have examined impugned order, F.I.R. and different Medical Certificates and with the assistance of learned A.A.G. the Mashirnama of injuries, Medical Report of Radiologist and first Medical Certificate dated 2‑6‑2001 have been perused minutely.

15. The bail application of co‑accused Qurban. Shaukat and Tinku was dismissed by a detailed order passed on 23‑10‑2001. According to the F.I.R., incident had taken place on 1‑6‑2001 at 4‑45 p.m. and the F.I.R. was registered on the same day at. 7 -30 p.m. According to the F.I.R. 14 persons were involved including the present applicant/accused but during the course of investigation eight co‑accused were let off by the police and their names were mentioned in Column No.2 of the challan. The co‑accused Din Muhammad, Gulsher. Ahmed, Qadirdad, Afzal and Suleman were released on bail by the trial Court and thereafter co‑accused Ramzan was also released on bail by an order dated 23‑8 -2001.

16. Since there is variance in the Medical Certificates and the six injuries mentioned as per final Medical Certificate were not noted on 1‑6‑2001 and after lapse of 10 days another Medical Certificate was issued. It is surprising to note that the injuries were not incorporated in the first Medical Certificate nor such injuries were kept as reserved subject to the report of the Radiologist and according to the F.I.R. it is alleged that applicant/accused caused hatchet blow on the head of P. W. Muhammad Bachal which itself is contradictory with the first Medical Certificate, second Medical Certificate and the 3rd Medical Certificate. It is manifest that the Medical Officer did not note any injury on the day of examination but it was only noted "head injury, refer to Civil Hospital, Sukkur." On the basis of reference Radiologist examined injured and three X‑rays were taken and on the basis of X‑ray report, it was observed as under:

17. X‑RAY SKULL/APP LAT VIEW.

18. " Prominent intra gravial vascular marring"

19. "No traumatic Bony lesion seen in these skiagravs over skull vault Bones.

20. X‑RAY HAND APP LAT VIEW.

21. " No traumatic Bony lesion seen in this skiagam"

22. According to the final Medical Certificate the nature of injuries are described Injury No.2 Shajjah‑I‑Mudihah whereas other all injuries were turned to be as Shajjah‑I‑khafifah. From the conduct of the Medical Officer it is obvious that he transported six injuries in the final Medical Certificate which was issued on 11‑6‑2001 whereas as per Medical Certificate dated 1‑6‑2001 issued on 2‑6‑2001 disclosed only one injury but according to the Mashirnama of injuries, three injuries were noted by the Investigating Officer. The Medical Officer remained silent while noting the injuries on 1‑6‑2001 and thereafter issued final Medical Certificate on his own because the Radiologist had not disclosed any number of injuries as per X‑ray reports and the Expert Opinion is always to be believed in respect of injuries. The Medical Officer is unable to explain his position while several questions have been put about the import of six injuries but he states all injuries were noted down on the white paper on the very day of examination and after receipt of Radiologist report, he incorporated such injuries in the final Medical Certificate. The Medical Officer states that he is working as Medical Officer for the last 12 years but according to the fate of this case, he has not acted sincerely to perform his duties diligently and deliberately spoiled he prosecution case or tried to shield the accused from the commission of offence. However, his case is referred to the Executive District Officer (Health), Khairpur to determine whether he can be assigned more work in respect of Medico Legal cases. The EDO Health, Khairpur is required to examine the Medico‑Legal record of Taluka Hospital. Gambat whether he is fit to hold such powers to deal with the Medico‑Legal cases.

23. Since the applicant/accused has made out a case of further enquiry on the grounds stated above, consequently bail is granted to the applicant/accused subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) and P.R.bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

24. The show‑cause notices issued to Dr. Ghulam Rasool, S.H.O. Syed Qalab Abbas Shah and A.S.I Ghulam Jafar Dasti are recalled.

25. N.H.Q./L‑25/K Bail allowed.