GAMOO Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the State who is assisted by Ghulam Muhammad, A.S.I. Police Station Shahpur Sadar. According to the prosecution on the day preceding the occurrence there As a dispute between the parties on the cutting of wheat crop. However, the matter was settled on the intervention of the elders. On the same afternoon a buffalo of the complainant party strayed into the tobacco field of Gamoo petitioner and caused damage. This led to an altercation between Gamoo petitioner rend the father of the complainant, i. e. the deceased named Ali Muhammad.

2. The petitioner and other co-accused were sitting in the courtyard (thhara) of their own house when Said Rasul son of the deceased passed over the thhara whereupon Abdur Razzaq accused gave him a sota blow stating that as to why he had passed from the courtyard. The complainant Ghulam Rasul was, aft that time, present nearby in the courtyard. Muhammad Ail was about to tie his buffalo, he severely reprimanded the petitioner and others as to why they had given a beating to Said Rasul. Thereupon Gamoo petitioner went inside his house and brought out a wahauli and inflicted a blow on the head of Ali Muhammad, as a result of which he fell down :--

2. The broad facts taken from the record are ..

(a) that Ali Muhammad deceased had received the injury in the court yard of the petitioner;

(b) that both sides are injured which include womenfolk and the injuries are of insignificant nature anal had been declared simple ;

(c) that the immediate cause of grievance was with the complain ant party;

(d) that it was 'Said Rasul who came in the courtyard of the petitioner and trespassed over the thhara of the. petitioner ;

(e) that immediately before receiving the blow it was the deceased who reprimanded the petitioner's side ;

(f) that the petitioner and others were initially sitting on their own thhara inside the courtyard empty-handed and later a wahauli was brought from inside the house after a trespass committed by Said Rasul and lastly ;

(g) that only one blow has been inflicted to the deceased.

3. In this view of the matter I am of the view that it is a matter of further inquiry as to whether it is a case of grave and sudden provocation and as to whether the complainant side was the aggressor. It is also a matter of further enquiry as to whether in the given circumstances the petitioner is liable to extreme penalty or liable to penalty laid down in the prohibitory clause. The case of the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 25.000 with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Shahpur, Sadar.

4. Bail allowed