SHOUKAT ALI Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. Applicant Shoukat Ali has been arrested for an offence punishable under section 302/34, P.P.C.

2. The first information report in this case was lodged on 17-4-2002 by Khan Jan. According to F.I.R., the complainant, P.Ws. Khair Bux and Haji Muhammad and deceased Mashooque Ali were sitting at the hotel of Aslam Punjabi in Shahdadkot Town where they had ordered for tea. At about 9-00 a.m. three unknown persons, one armed with country-made pistol and two with pistols emerged there all of a sudden. Complainant disclosed in the F.I.R. that the assailant, who was armed with country-made pistol fired at deceased Mashooque 'Ali, which hit him on his left side face cheek. He raised a cry and fell down and died on the spot. The assailants ran away. A police mobile of Police Station Shahdadkot appeared there and A.S.-I. Mashooque Ali Cahndio with the help of the complainant chased the culprits and succeeded in apprehending the applicant at Sijawal Chowk alongwith country-made pistol. The complainant identified him to be the assailant, who fired the fatal shot at deceased Mashooque.

3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. Mehboob Ali Shah, learned counsel. for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is minor within the meaning of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. He further argued that the complainant has stated in the F.I.R. that the assailants were unidentified persons, but the eye-witnesses, namely, Khair Bux and Haji Muhammad, who are close relatives of the complainant have in their statements recorded on the same day, given the name of applicant as Shoukat, therefore, this is a case of two versions. He further submitted that the medical evidence shows three injuries whereas the F.I.R. mentions one shot allegedly fired by the applicant, therefore, the case requires further inquiry. He relied upon the cases 2000 YLR 2928 (Amjad Yameen v. State) 2001 PCr.LJ 1692 (Mahfooz- uz-Rehman v. State) and 2002 MLD 1566 (Asghar Ali v. State) in support of his contentions.

5. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail on the ground that the eye-witnesses have nominated the applicant, while the complainant with the help of police succeeded in capturing the applicant within minutes of the occurrence and the medical evidence is, in conformity with the case of prosecution, as such there is sufficient evidence to believe that the applicant is, prima facie, responsible for offence of Qatl-i-Amd. He relied on 2002 SCMR 1886 Parveen Akhtar v. State in this regard. He further regarding the plea of tender age he argued that the Medical Board on examination of the applicant opined that the applicant's age was 21/22 years, therefore, the applicant was not minor at the time of occurrence.

6. I have considered all these contentions carefully.

7. The statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. show that, the allegation of causing fatal shot is attributed to applicant alone. There is evidence of independent Mashir that is to say A.S.-I. Muhammad Mashooque, who captured the applicant within minutes of the occurrence. The complainant's version also was fully supported by two eye-witnesses. The complainant party belongs to Shahdadkot, while the accused is said to be resident of Taluka Ratodero. At this stage, it cannot be said that the complainant intentionally suppressed the name of accused in the first portion of his F. I. R.

8. The medical evidence shows two entrance wounds on left cheek and third one is wound of exit. Since the fire is said to have been made from a country-made pistol, the medical evidence does not come in conflict with the ocular version. As regards the age, of applicant, the Medical Board on examination of the applicant has opined that the age of the applicant was 21/22 years, As against this the applicant is relying on a school leaving certificate, which is a photostat copy and not the original one. The ground of minority under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is, therefore, not available to the applicant. The authorities cited by the learned counsel do not support the bail plea in view of the aforementioned circumstances of the case, There is prima facie sufficient evidence against the applicant, to connect him with the offence of Qatl-i-Amd. The bail plea accordingly is rejected and the bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

9. H.B.T./S-302/K Application dismissed.