SABIR ALI ALIAS MANNA Versus STATE

ORDER

The petitioner, Bashir Ahmed, his father Munshi Khan, his brother Farooq and his uncle Pir Khan are accused of the murder of Muhammad Sadiq which took place at 4‑30 p.m. on 20‑10‑1988 and was reported to the police by Muhammad Tufail, complainant, at 11‑45 a.m. on 21‑10‑1988. The prosecution case is that a sister's son of the complainant named Muhammad Hussain, aged 12/13, who was grazing his goats when one of the goats stayed into the paddy crop of Majid, a brother of the petitioner, Majid gave beating to the boy. When the boy Muhammad Hussain narrated the incident to Muhammad Sadiq, deceased, the latter took the boy with him to the house of Majid to protest. They were standing in the Chowk when Munshi Khan raised a Lalkara, Bashir Ahmed, petitioner, and Farooq emerged from their houses armed with Dangs and gave one blow each to Muhammad Sadiq, deceased on the head. Pir Khan accused gave kick blows to the deceased. The deceased was carried to the hospital but the doctor referred him to the General Hospital, Lahore.

2. It is stated that the case was investigated first by the S.H.O. and then by a D.S.P. The S.H.O. found that the incident had occurred in the house of the accused persons and not in the street, that the complainant party had gone to the house of the accused persons armed with Sotas and that Mst. Rehmani, petitioner's mother was inured at the hands of the complainant party. The D.S.P. affirmed the S.H.O's. findings. Accordingly, the petitioner's co‑accused were found innocent. They are on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that in view of the facts found by the Investigating Officers, particularly the injuries of Mst. Rehmani, the petitioner had a right of self‑defence. He lays emphasis on the fact that Farooq accused, who was attributed the other head injury, was found innocent by the police. The contention, therefore, is that the petitioner committed no offence, for in the circumstances of the case, he cannot be said to have exceeded his right of self‑defence. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner's case falls under section 497, subsection (2), Cr.P.C. I, therefore, allow the petitioner to be released on bail on‑his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate concerned.

M.Y.H./B‑145/L Bail granted.