ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner herein, stands arrested in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered against him and one Ashfaq, at Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad District Faisalabad, vide F.I.R. No. 43, dated 14th August, 1987.

2. According to prosecution, the deceased in this case, namely, Muhammad Yusuf was suspected of having illicit connection with Mst. Kalsoom, sister of Ashfaq co-accused of the petitioner. Abdul Ghaffar petitioner is stated to be maternal-uncle of the lad y1 On the fateful day the petitioner called the deceased from his house and took him towards graveyard. Ashfaq co-accused also joined him. While walking together Ashfaq allegedly fired with his pistol at his back as a result of which he fell down and then Abdul Ghaffar petitioner inflicted injuries on him. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Hussain, Allah Rakha and Liaqat. The report was lodged immediately at the police station.

3. The medical witness who performed post-mortem examination found seven injuries on the person of the deceased. Two of them i.e. an entry wound and the other exit wound, are the result of fire-arm. The remaining are lacerated wounds. The witnesses during investigation explained that rest of the injuries were caused by Abdul Ghaffar petitioner with the Butt side of the pistol. The petitioner applied for the grant of bail in the lower Court but remaining unsuccessful has approached this Court for the same relief.

4. It is contended that since the petitioner had not fired at the deceased and did not cause any fatal injury resulting in his death, therefore, he cannot be said to be sharing the common intention with Ashfaq the principal accused. I am afraid the argument is misconceived for the reasons that Abdul Ghaffar petitioner took active part in committing the murder of the deceased, i.e. that he called the deceased from his house and facilitated his co-accused to fire at him. Secondly he had caused injuries with the Butt side of the pistol which fact is borne out from the medical evidence, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that he is not vicariously liable for murdering Yusuf deceased. In this view of the matter I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.

S.G.D./A-343/L Bail refused.