MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE
ORDER
In brief the prosecution case is that on 15‑5‑1988 at about 6.15 p.m. Manzoor Hussain complainant and Muhammad Ashraf son of Ibrahim were proceeding to the house of Muhammad Khan. When they reached near the water‑course, they saw Mushtaq, Muhammad Ashraf son of Bhai Khan, Ramzan and Ata Muhammad armed with sticks present there. Mushtaq said that it was his turn of water and that why they have diverted the water. This resulted in exchange of hot words and abuses between the parties. Suleman, Abdul Rehman, Ghulam Muhammad, Zulfiqar and Shamsher also reached there on hearing the al n. Muhammad Ashraf son of Ata Muhammad armed with gun, Muhammad Bashir armed with Kassi, Khizar Hayat armed with knife, Manzoor and Shama armed with sticks came there shouting Lalkaras. Muhammad Ashraf son of Ata Muhammad fired hitting Muhammad Ashraf son of Ibrahim on his left flank. He fell down. Muhammad Ramzan accused gave two stick blows on the head of Mushtaq P.W. who was given another stick blow by Ata Muhammad. He also fell down, whereafter Muhammad Bashir gave him Kassi blow. Khizar Hayat gave repeated knife blows to Mushtaq. Thereafter, Ata Muhammad gave stick blow on the shoulder of Ghulam Muhammad who felt down. Manzoor, Shana and Ramzan gave sticks blows to Ghulam Muhammad when he was lying on ground. Abdul Rehman P.W. was given stick blows by Manzoor and Shana. He also fell down. Muhammad Bashir gave Kaasi blow on his back. Ramzan and Ata Muhammad gave stick blows to Abdul Rehman who was lying on the ground. Manzoor accused gave stick blows to Zulfiqar P.W. on head. Khizar Hayat inflicted knife blows on his person. Thereafter, Manzoor, Shana, Ata Muhammad and Ramzan gave blows to Zulfiqar with their respective sticks. Shamsher P.W. was given stick blows by Muhammad Ramzan and Ata Muhammad. He also fell down. He was given stick blows by Shana and Manzoor. The motive was stated to be that Shamsher P.W. and his cousin Allah Yar had caused injuries to Ata Muhammad, Muhammad Ramzan accused and others. They were prosecuted in a case under section 307, P.P.C. but acquitted before this occurrence. The result of this occurrence was that Shamsher P.W. received five blunt weapon injuries on his person. One of these injuries on arm was grievous. Zulfiqar P.W. received 7 simple .injuries on his person. One injury was by sharp‑edged weapon and remaining by blunt weapon. Ghulam Muhammad P.W. received 11 blunt weapon simple injuries on his person. Abdul Rehman P.W. received six blunt weapon injuries on his person. One injury on arm was grievous. Mushtaq P.W. received 'l sharp‑edged and blunt weapon injuries on his person. One injury on arm was grievous m nature. Muhammad Ashraf P.W. received fire‑arm injuries on his person. One in my on thigh was grievous.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. This is a petition on behalf of Ramzan, Ata Muhammad, Muhammad Bashir, Manzoor, Shana and Khizar Havat accused. Muhammad Ashraf son of Ata Muhammad has not applied for bail.
3. In support of this petition it is contended firstly, that it was a case of self defence. Only Muhammad Ramzan and his brother Ata Muhammad accused were present at the time of occurrence and the case against remaining accused was false. The occurrence took place in the land of the accused. Secondly, that the occurrence took place at about 6.15 p.m. on 15‑5‑1988 whereas the F.I.R. was recorded at the Police Station next day at 9.30 a.m. The delay had not been explained in F.I.R., and thirdly, the injuries on the person of Ata Muhammad and Manzoor accused have not been explained in the F.I.R. This petition has been opposed on behalf of the State and complainant. I have carefully gone through the record. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place on the boundary line of Killas No.15‑16; both belonging to the accused party. The main water channel is about 5/6 Killas from the place of occurrence and the second water channel which takes off from the main channel is about 3/4 Killas from the 'pace of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the parties exchanged abuses on the diversion of the water which attracted Muhammad Ashraf son of Ata Muhammad accused and his companions who were not initially present at the place of occurrence. They all arrived at the spot armed with different weapons after hearing the alarm. The injured witnesses were not armed at that time. The accused caused injuries with gun, sharp‑edged weapon and blunt weapons on thte person of six injured witnesses who received simple as well as grievous injuries on 1 their person. It is correct that the occurrence took place on the boundary line of the fields of the accused but this fact alone could not have given justification to the accused to cause injuries on the person of the witnesses with deadly weapons. The question whether the accused acted in exercise of the right of their self defence will be decided by the trial Court after recording of evidence. The' learned counsel laid such emphasis on the injuries of Manzoor and Ata Muhammad accused. It was not case of Manzoor accused during investigation that he was present at the spot at the time of occurrence. The learned counsel argued that only Ramzan and Ata Muhammad accused were present at the spot and the remaining accused have been falsely involved in this case. As such the , prosecution was not required to explain the injuries on the person of Manzoor accused‑petitioner. So far as the injuries of Ata Muhammad accused are concerned, he got himself medically examined as a private case at 3 a.m., on 17‑2 1988. The medical officer noted 6 blunt weapon simple injuries on his person at that time. The duration of these injuries was within 6 to 8 hours. This means that Ata Muhammad accused had received injuries on his person at about 8/9 p.m., on 16‑2‑1988 i.e., many hours after registration of the case. When confronted with this situation, the learned counsel did not place reliance on the injuries of Ata Muhammad accused.
The delay in registration of the case has been fully explained in the F.I.R. The occurrence took place late in the evening. The injured were taken to hospital for treatment and examination whereafter the complainant went to lodge the I report at the police station. I am, therefore, of the view that the delay in F.I.R. or injuries to two of the accused could not furnish a ground for bail to the petitioners.
The accused were armed with deadly weapons like gun, Kassi, sticks, etc,' They inflicted grievous and simple injuries on the person of six witnesses. Their case could be held to be of further enquiry only on a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused have committed a non‑bailable offence. Relying on Arbab Ali v. Khamiso and others (1985 S C M R 195) I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
M.Y.H./M‑929/L. Bail refused.